[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Atthe same time, any one desirous of ignoring, in mere speculation, these dogmatical propositions, need not forthat reason be accused of denying them.Both Epicurus and Plato assert more in their systems than they know.The former encourages and advancesscience- although to the prejudice of the practical; the latter presents us with excellent principles for theinvestigation of the practical, but, in relation to everything regarding which we can attain to speculativecognition, permits reason to append idealistic explanations of natural phenomena, to the great injury ofphysical investigation.3.In regard to the third motive for the preliminary choice of a party in this war of assertions, it seems veryextraordinary that empiricism should be utterly unpopular.We should be inclined to believe that the commonunderstanding would receive it with pleasure- promising as it does to satisfy it without passing the bounds ofexperience and its connected order; while transcendental dogmatism obliges it to rise to conceptions whichfar surpass the intelligence and ability of the most practised thinkers.But in this, in truth, is to be found itsreal motive.For the common understanding thus finds itself in a situation where not even the most learnedcan have the advantage of it.If it understands little or nothing about these transcendental conceptions, no onecan boast of understanding any more; and although it may not express itself in so scholastically correct amanner as others, it can busy itself with reasoning and arguments without end, wandering among mere ideas,about which one can always be very eloquent, because we know nothing about them; while, in theSECTION III.Of the Interest of Reason in these Self-contradictions.162 The Critique of Pure Reasonobservation and investigation of nature, it would be forced to remain dumb and to confess its utter ignorance.Thus indolence and vanity form of themselves strong recommendations of these principles.Besides, althoughit is a hard thing for a philosopher to assume a principle, of which he can give to himself no reasonableaccount, and still more to employ conceptions, the objective reality of which cannot be established, nothing ismore usual with the common understanding.It wants something which will allow it to go to work withconfidence.The difficulty of even comprehending a supposition does not disquiet it, because- not knowingwhat comprehending means- it never even thinks of the supposition it may be adopting as a principle; andregards as known that with which it has become familiar from constant use.And, at last, all speculativeinterests disappear before the practical interests which it holds dear; and it fancies that it understands andknows what its necessities and hopes incite it to assume or to believe.Thus the empiricism oftranscendentally idealizing reason is robbed of all popularity; and, however prejudicial it may be to thehighest practical principles, there is no fear that it will ever pass the limits of the schools, or acquire anyfavour or influence in society or with the multitude aHuman reason is by nature architectonic.That is to say, it regards all cognitions as parts of a possible system,and hence accepts only such principles as at least do not incapacitate a cognition to which we may haveattained from being placed along with others in a general system.But the propositions of the antithesis are ofa character which renders the completion of an edifice of cognitions impossible.According to these, beyondone state or epoch of the world there is always to be found one more ancient; in every part always other partsthemselves divisible; preceding every event another, the origin of which must itself be sought still higher; andeverything in existence is conditioned, and still not dependent on an unconditioned and primal existence.As,therefore, the antithesis will not concede the existence of a first beginning which might be available as afoundation, a complete edifice of cognition, in the presence of such hypothesis, is utterly impossible.Thusthe architectonic interest of reason, which requires a unity- not empirical, but a priori and rational- forms anatural recommendation for the assertions of the thesis in our antinomy.But if any one could free himself entirely from all considerations of interest, and weigh without partiality theassertions of reason, attending only to their content, irrespective of the consequences which follow fromthem; such a person, on the supposition that he knew no other way out of the confusion than to settle the truthof one or other of the conflicting doctrines, would live in a state of continual hesitation.Today, he would feelconvinced that the human will is free; to-morrow, considering the indissoluble chain of nature, he wouldlook on freedom as a mere illusion and declare nature to be all-in-all.But, if he were called to action, theplay of the merely speculative reason would disappear like the shapes of a dream, and practical interest woulddictate his choice of principles.But, as it well befits a reflective and inquiring being to devote certain periodsof time to the examination of its own reason- to divest itself of all partiality, and frankly to communicate itsobservations for the judgement and opinion of others; so no one can be blamed for, much less preventedfrom, placing both parties on their trial, with permission to end themselves, free from intimidation, beforeintimidation, before a sworn jury of equal condition with themselves- the condition of weak and fallible men.SECTION IV.Of the necessity imposed upon Pure Reason of presentinga Solution of its Transcendental Problems [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.Atthe same time, any one desirous of ignoring, in mere speculation, these dogmatical propositions, need not forthat reason be accused of denying them.Both Epicurus and Plato assert more in their systems than they know.The former encourages and advancesscience- although to the prejudice of the practical; the latter presents us with excellent principles for theinvestigation of the practical, but, in relation to everything regarding which we can attain to speculativecognition, permits reason to append idealistic explanations of natural phenomena, to the great injury ofphysical investigation.3.In regard to the third motive for the preliminary choice of a party in this war of assertions, it seems veryextraordinary that empiricism should be utterly unpopular.We should be inclined to believe that the commonunderstanding would receive it with pleasure- promising as it does to satisfy it without passing the bounds ofexperience and its connected order; while transcendental dogmatism obliges it to rise to conceptions whichfar surpass the intelligence and ability of the most practised thinkers.But in this, in truth, is to be found itsreal motive.For the common understanding thus finds itself in a situation where not even the most learnedcan have the advantage of it.If it understands little or nothing about these transcendental conceptions, no onecan boast of understanding any more; and although it may not express itself in so scholastically correct amanner as others, it can busy itself with reasoning and arguments without end, wandering among mere ideas,about which one can always be very eloquent, because we know nothing about them; while, in theSECTION III.Of the Interest of Reason in these Self-contradictions.162 The Critique of Pure Reasonobservation and investigation of nature, it would be forced to remain dumb and to confess its utter ignorance.Thus indolence and vanity form of themselves strong recommendations of these principles.Besides, althoughit is a hard thing for a philosopher to assume a principle, of which he can give to himself no reasonableaccount, and still more to employ conceptions, the objective reality of which cannot be established, nothing ismore usual with the common understanding.It wants something which will allow it to go to work withconfidence.The difficulty of even comprehending a supposition does not disquiet it, because- not knowingwhat comprehending means- it never even thinks of the supposition it may be adopting as a principle; andregards as known that with which it has become familiar from constant use.And, at last, all speculativeinterests disappear before the practical interests which it holds dear; and it fancies that it understands andknows what its necessities and hopes incite it to assume or to believe.Thus the empiricism oftranscendentally idealizing reason is robbed of all popularity; and, however prejudicial it may be to thehighest practical principles, there is no fear that it will ever pass the limits of the schools, or acquire anyfavour or influence in society or with the multitude aHuman reason is by nature architectonic.That is to say, it regards all cognitions as parts of a possible system,and hence accepts only such principles as at least do not incapacitate a cognition to which we may haveattained from being placed along with others in a general system.But the propositions of the antithesis are ofa character which renders the completion of an edifice of cognitions impossible.According to these, beyondone state or epoch of the world there is always to be found one more ancient; in every part always other partsthemselves divisible; preceding every event another, the origin of which must itself be sought still higher; andeverything in existence is conditioned, and still not dependent on an unconditioned and primal existence.As,therefore, the antithesis will not concede the existence of a first beginning which might be available as afoundation, a complete edifice of cognition, in the presence of such hypothesis, is utterly impossible.Thusthe architectonic interest of reason, which requires a unity- not empirical, but a priori and rational- forms anatural recommendation for the assertions of the thesis in our antinomy.But if any one could free himself entirely from all considerations of interest, and weigh without partiality theassertions of reason, attending only to their content, irrespective of the consequences which follow fromthem; such a person, on the supposition that he knew no other way out of the confusion than to settle the truthof one or other of the conflicting doctrines, would live in a state of continual hesitation.Today, he would feelconvinced that the human will is free; to-morrow, considering the indissoluble chain of nature, he wouldlook on freedom as a mere illusion and declare nature to be all-in-all.But, if he were called to action, theplay of the merely speculative reason would disappear like the shapes of a dream, and practical interest woulddictate his choice of principles.But, as it well befits a reflective and inquiring being to devote certain periodsof time to the examination of its own reason- to divest itself of all partiality, and frankly to communicate itsobservations for the judgement and opinion of others; so no one can be blamed for, much less preventedfrom, placing both parties on their trial, with permission to end themselves, free from intimidation, beforeintimidation, before a sworn jury of equal condition with themselves- the condition of weak and fallible men.SECTION IV.Of the necessity imposed upon Pure Reason of presentinga Solution of its Transcendental Problems [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]