the+critique+of+practical+reason-第2部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


Otherwise　reason　inevitably　contradicts　itself。

　　By　this　also　I　can　understand　why　the　most　considerable　objections
which　I　have　as　yet　met　with　against　the　Critique　turn　about　these　two
points；　namely；　on　the　one　side；　the　objective　reality　of　the
categories　as　applied　to　noumena；　which　is　in　the　theoretical
department　of　knowledge　denied；　in　the　practical　affirmed；　and　on
the　other　side；　the　paradoxical　demand　to　regard　oneself　qua　subject
of　freedom　as　a　noumenon；　and　at　the　same　time　from　the　point　of
view　of　physical　nature　as　a　phenomenon　in　one's　own　empirical
consciousness；　for　as　long　as　one　has　formed　no　definite　notions　of
morality　and　freedom；　one　could　not　conjecture　on　the　one　side　what
was　intended　to　be　the　noumenon；　the　basis　of　the　alleged
phenomenon；　and　on　the　other　side　it　seemed　doubtful　whether　it　was　at
all　possible　to　form　any　notion　of　it；　seeing　that　we　had　previously
assigned　all　the　notions　of　the　pure　understanding　in　its
theoretical　use　exclusively　to　phenomena。　Nothing　but　a　detailed
criticism　of　the　practical　reason　can　remove　all　this
misapprehension　and　set　in　a　clear　light　the　consistency　which
constitutes　its　greatest　merit。
　　So　much　by　way　of　justification　of　the　proceeding　by　which；　in
this　work；　the　notions　and　principles　of　pure　speculative　reason　which
have　already　undergone　their　special　critical　examination　are；　now　and
then；　again　subjected　to　examination。　This　would　not　in　other　cases　be
in　accordance　with　the　systematic　process　by　which　a　science　is
established；　since　matters　which　have　been　decided　ought　only　to　be
cited　and　not　again　discussed。　In　this　case；　however；　it　was　not
only　allowable　but　necessary；　because　reason　is　here　considered　in
transition　to　a　different　use　of　these　concepts　from　what　it　had
made　of　them　before。　Such　a　transition　necessitates　a　parison　of
the　old　and　the　new　usage；　in　order　to　distinguish　well　the　new　path
from　the　old　one　and；　at　the　same　time；　to　allow　their　connection　to
be　observed。　Accordingly　considerations　of　this　kind；　including
those　which　are　once　more　directed　to　the　concept　of　freedom　in　the
practical　use　of　the　pure　reason；　must　not　be　regarded　as　an
interpolation　serving　only　to　fill　up　the　gaps　in　the　critical
system　of　speculative　reason　（for　this　is　for　its　own　purpose
plete）；　or　like　the　props　and　buttresses　which　in　a　hastily
constructed　building　are　often　added　afterwards；　but　as　true　members
which　make　the　connexion　of　the　system　plain；　and　show　us　concepts；
here　presented　as　real；　which　there　could　only　be　presented
problematically。　This　remark　applies　especially　to　the　concept　of
freedom；　respecting　which　one　cannot　but　observe　with　surprise　that　so
many　boast　of　being　able　to　understand　it　quite　well　and　to　explain
its　possibility；　while　they　regard　it　only　psychologically；　whereas　if
they　had　studied　it　in　a　transcendental　point　of　view；　they　must
have　recognized　that　it　is　not　only　indispensable　as　a　problematical
concept；　in　the　plete　use　of　speculative　reason；　but　also　quite
inprehensible；　and　if　they　afterwards　came　to　consider　its
practical　use；　they　must　needs　have　e　to　the　very　mode　of
determining　the　principles　of　this；　to　which　they　are　now　so　loth　to
assent。　The　concept　of　freedom　is　the　stone　of　stumbling　for　all
empiricists；　but　at　the　same　time　the　key　to　the　loftiest　practical
principles　for　critical　moralists；　who　perceive　by　its　means　that　they
must　necessarily　proceed　by　a　rational　method。　For　this　reason　I　beg
the　reader　not　to　pass　lightly　over　what　is　said　of　this　concept　at
the　end　of　the　Analytic。
　　I　must　leave　it　to　those　who　are　acquainted　with　works　of　this
kind　to　judge　whether　such　a　system　as　that　of　the　practical　reason；
which　is　here　developed　from　the　critical　examination　of　it；　has
cost　much　or　little　trouble；　especially　in　seeking　not　to　miss　the
true　point　of　view　from　which　the　whole　can　be　rightly　sketched。　It
presupposes；　indeed；　the　Fundamental　Principles　of　the　Metaphysic　of
Morals；　but　only　in　so　far　as　this　gives　a　preliminary　acquaintance
with　the　principle　of　duty；　and　assigns　and　justifies　a　definite
formula　thereof；　in　other　respects　it　is　independent。*　It　results　from
the　nature　of　this　practical　faculty　itself　that　the　plete
classification　of　all　practical　sciences　cannot　be　added；　as　in　the
critique　of　the　speculative　reason。　For　it　is　not　possible　to　define
duties　specially；　as　human　duties；　with　a　view　to　their
classification；　until　the　subject　of　this　definition　（viz。；　man）　is
known　according　to　his　actual　nature；　at　least　so　far　as　is
necessary　with　respect　to　duty；　this；　however；　does　not　belong　to　a
critical　examination　of　the　practical　reason；　the　business　of　which　is
only　to　assign　in　a　plete　manner　the　principles　of　its　possibility；
extent；　and　limits；　without　special　reference　to　human　nature。　The
classification　then　belongs　to　the　system　of　science；　not　to　the
system　of　criticism。

　　*A　reviewer　who　wanted　to　find　some　fault　with　this　work　has　hit　the
truth　better；　perhaps；　than　he　thought；　when　he　says　that　no　new
principle　of　morality　is　set　forth　in　it；　but　only　a　new　formula。
But　who　would　think　of　introducing　a　new　principle　of　all　morality　and
making　himself　as　it　were　the　first　discoverer　of　it；　just　as　if　all
the　world　before　him　were　ignorant　what　duty　was　or　had　been　in
thorough…going　error？　But　whoever　knows　of　what　importance　to　a
mathematician　a　formula　is；　which　defines　accurately　what　is　to　be
done　to　work　a　problem；　will　not　think　that　a　formula　is　insignificant
and　useless　which　does　the　same　for　all　duty　in　general。

　　In　the　second　part　of　the　Analytic　I　have　given；　as　I　trust；　a
sufficient　answer　to　the　objection　of　a　truth…loving　and　acute　critic*
of　the　Fundamental　Principles　of　the　Metaphysic　of　Morals…　a　critic
always　worthy　of　respect　the　objection；　namely；　that　the　notion　of
good　was　not　established　before　the　moral　principle；　as　be　thinks　it
ought　to　have　been。*＇2＇　I　have　also　had　regard　to　many　of　the
objections　which　have　reached　me　from　men　who　show　that　they　have　at
heart　the　discovery　of　the　truth；　and　I　shall　continue　to　do　so　（for
those　who　have　only　their　old　system　before　their　eyes；　and　who　have
already　settled　what　is　to　be　approved　or　disapproved；　do　not　desire
any　explanation　which　might　stand　in　the　way　of　their　own　private
opinion。）

　　*＇See　Kant's　〃Das　mag　in　der　Theoric　ricktig　seyn；〃　etc。　Werke；　vol。
vii；　p。　182。＇
　　*＇2＇　It　might　also　have　been　objected　to　me　that　I　have　not　first
defined　the　notion　of　the　faculty　of　desire；　or　of　the　feeling　of
Pleasure；　although　this　reproach　would　be　unfair；　because　this
definition　might　reasonably　be　presupposed　as　given　in　psychology。
However；　the　definition　there　given　might　be　such　as　to　found　the
determination　of　the　faculty　of　desire　on　the　feeling　of　pleasure
（as　is　monly　done）；　and　thus　the　supreme　principle　of　practical
philosophy　would　be　necessarily　made　empirical；　which；　however；
remains　to　be　proved　and　in　this　critique　is　altogether　refuted。　It
will；　therefore；　give　this　definition　here　in　such　a　manner　as　it
ought　to　be　given；　in　order　to　leave　this　contested　point　open　at
the　beginning；　as　it　should　be。　LIFE　is　the　faculty　a　being　has　of
acting　according　to　laws　of　the　faculty　of　desire。　The　faculty　of
DESIRE　is　the　being's　faculty　of　being　by　means　of　its　ideas　the
cause　of　the　actual　existence　of　the　objects　of　these　ideas。
PLEASURE　is　the　idea　of　the　agreement　of　the　object；　or　the　action
with　the　subjective　conditions　of　life；　i。e。；　with　the　faculty　of
causality　of　an　idea　in　respect　of　the　actuality　of　its　object　（or
with　the　determination　of　the　forces　of　the　subject　to　action　which
produces　it）。　I　have　no　further　need　for　the　purposes　of　this　critique
of　notions　borrowed　from　psychology；　the　critique　itself　supplies
the　rest。　It　is　easily　seen　that　the　question　whether　the　faculty　of
desire　is　always　based　on　pleasure；　or　whether　under　certain
conditions　pleasure　only　follows　the　determination　of　desire；　is　by
this　definition　left　undecided；　for　it　is　posed　only　of　terms
belonging　to　the　pure　understanding；　i。e。；　of　categories　which　cont