FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131  
132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   >>   >|  
thout their necessarily being related to functions of the understanding, and therefore without the understanding containing _a priori_ the conditions of these objects. Hence a difficulty appears here, which we did not meet in the field of sensibility, viz. how _subjective conditions of thought_ can have _objective validity_, i. e. can furnish conditions of the possibility of all knowledge of objects; for phenomena can certainly be given us in perception without the functions of the understanding. Let us take, for example, the conception of cause, which indicates a peculiar kind of synthesis in which on A something entirely different B is placed[6] according to a law. It is not _a priori_ clear why phenomena should contain something of this kind ... and it is consequently doubtful _a priori_, whether such a conception is not wholly empty, and without any corresponding object among phenomena. For that objects of sensuous perception must conform to the formal conditions of the sensibility which lie _a priori_ in the mind is clear, since otherwise they would not be objects for us; but that they must also conform to the conditions which the understanding requires for the synthetical unity of thought is a conclusion the cogency of which it is not so easy to see. For phenomena might quite well be so constituted that the understanding did not find them in conformity with the conditions of its unity, and everything might lie in such confusion that, e. g. in the succession of phenomena, nothing might present itself which would offer a rule of synthesis, and so correspond to the conception of cause and effect, so that this conception would be quite empty, null, and meaningless. Phenomena would none the less present objects to our perception, for perception does not in any way require the functions of thinking."[7] [6] _Gesetzt._ [7] B. 121-3, M. 75-6. This passage, if read in connexion with that immediately preceding it,[8] may be paraphrased as follows: 'The argument of the _Aesthetic_ assumes the validity of mathematical judgements, which as such relate to space and time, and thence it deduces the phenomenal character of space and time, and of what is contained therein. At the same time the possibility of questioning the validity of the law of causality, and of similar principles, may lead us to question even the validity of mathematical judgements. In the case of mathematical judgements, however, in consequence o
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131  
132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

conditions

 

objects

 
understanding
 

phenomena

 
conception
 

perception

 

validity

 

priori

 

functions

 

judgements


mathematical

 
synthesis
 

present

 

conform

 
possibility
 
thought
 
sensibility
 

passage

 

preceding

 
immediately

connexion
 

Gesetzt

 

effect

 

meaningless

 
correspond
 
Phenomena
 

require

 

thinking

 

paraphrased

 

causality


similar
 

principles

 

questioning

 

question

 

consequence

 

contained

 

assumes

 

Aesthetic

 

argument

 
necessarily

relate

 
phenomenal
 
character
 

deduces

 

related

 
confusion
 

objective

 
doubtful
 

object

 
wholly