No More Learning

is
:
a
I
a
is ;
;
a
(it
I
in
il :
:
it
if : is
a
is
; a
a
;
is
? 452 TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
is also demonstratively certain that no one will ever be able to maintain the contrary with the least show of probability. For, as he can attempt such a proof solely upon the basis of pure reason, he is bound to prove that a Supreme Being, and a thinking subject in the character of a pure intelligence, are
impotsible. But where will he find the knowledge which can enable him to enounce synthetical judgments in regard to things which transcend the region of experience ? We may, Iherefore, rest assured that the opposite never will be demon strated. We need not, then, have recourse to scholastic argu ments ; we may always admit the truth of those propositions which are consistent with the speculative interests of reasor in the sphere of experience, and form, moreover, the only
means of uniting the speculative with the practical interest. Our opponent, who must not be considered here as a critic solely, we can be ready to meet with a non liquet which can not fail to disconcert him ; while we cannot deny his right to a similar retort, as we have on our side the advantage of the support of the subjective maxim of reason, and can therefore look upon all his sophistical arguments with calm in difference.
From this point of view, there is properly no antithetic of pure reason. For the only arena for such a struggle would be upon the field of pure theology and psychology ; but on this ground there can appear no combatant whom we need to fear. Ridicule and boasting can be his only weapons ; and these may be laughed at, as mere child's play. This consi deration restores to Reason her courage ; for what source of confidence could be found, if she, whose vocation it is to de
stroy error, were at variance with herself and without any reasonable hope of ever reaching a state of permanent repose ?
Everything in nature is good for some purpose. Even poisons are serviceable ; ffrey destroy the evil effects of other poisons generated in our system, and must always find a place in every complete pharmacopoeia. The objections raised against the fallacies and sophistries of speculative reason, are
objections given by the nature of this reason itself, and must therefore have a destination and purpose which can only be for the good of humanity. For what purpose has Providence raised many objects, in which we have the deepest interest, so far above us, that we vainly try to cognize them with cei>>
? ? ? ? THE DISCIPLINE OF PTJBE nEASOH. 453
tainty, and our powers of mental vision are rather excited than satisfied by the glimpses we may chance to seize ? It is very doubtful whether it is for our benefit to advance bold affirmations regarding subjects involved in such obscurity ; perhaps it would even De detrimental to our best interests. But it is undoubtedly always beneficial to leave the investi gating, aa well as the critical reason, in perfect freedom, and permit it to take charge of its own interests, which are ad vanced as much by its limitation, as by its extension of its views, and which always suffer by the interference of foreign powers forcing against its natural tendencies, to bend to cer tain pre-conceived designs.
Allow your opponent to say what he thinks reasonable, and combat him only with the weapons of reason. Have no anx iety for the practical interests of humanity--these are never imperilled in purely speculative dispute. Such dispute serves merely to disclose the antinomy of reason, which, as has its source in the nature of reason, ought to be thoroughly
? Reason benefited the examination of subject on both sides, and its judgments are corrected
being limited. not the matter that may give occasion to dispute, but the manner. For perfectly permissible to
investigated.
employ, in the presence of reason, the language of firmly- rooted faith, even after we have been obliged to renounce all pretensions to knowledge.
Ifwe were to ask the dispassionate Davi>l Hume-- phi losopher endowed, degree that few are, with well- balanced judgment What motive induced you to spend so much labour and thought in undermining the consoling and beneficial persuasion that Reason capable of assuring us of the existence, and presenting us with determinate conception of Supreme Being? -- His answer would be: Nothing but the desire of teaching Reason to know its own powers better,
and, at the same time, dislike of the procedure by which
that faculty was compelled to support foregone conclusions, and prevented from confessing the internal weaknesses which
cannot but feel when enters upon rigid self-examina tion. If, on the other hand, we were to ask Priestley---% philosopher who had no taste for transcendental speculation, but was entirely devoted to the principles of empiricism --what
his motives were for overturning those two main pillars
? ? of
by a it
it
a
it
a
a is
a
It :in is
is is
a by
a aa
a
it
a
it,
? 454 TRAirSCENDENTiX SOCTSIBK Of METHOD.
religion--the doctrines of the freedom of the will and the immortality of the soul (in his view the hope of a future life is but the expectation of the miracle of resurrection,) -- this philosopher, himself a zealous and pious teacher of religion,
I acted in the interest of reason, which always suffers, when certain objects are ex
could give no other answer than this :
plained and judged by a reference to other supposed laws than those of material nature --the only laws which we know in a determinate manner. It would be unfair to decry the latter philosopher, who endeavoured to harmonize his para doxical opinions with the interests of religion, and to under value an honest and reflecting man, because he finds himself it a loss the moment he has left the field of natural science. The same grace must be accorded to Hume, a man not less well-disposed, and quite as blameless in his moral character,
and who pushed his abstract speculations to an extreme length, because, as he rightly believed, the object of them lies en tirely beyond the bounds of natural science, and within the sphere of pure ideas.
What is to be done to provide against the danger which seems in the present case to menace the best interests of hu manity ? The course to be pursued in reference to this subject is a perfectly plain and natural one. Let each thinker pursue his own path ; if he shews talent, if he gives evidence of profound thought, in one word, if he shows that he pos sesses the power of reasoning, --reason is always the gainer. If you have recourse to other means, if you attempt to coerce reason, if you raise the cry of treason to humanity, if . you excite the feelings of the crowd, which can neither understand nor sympathise with such subtle speculations, --you will only
make yourselves ridiculous. For the question does not con cern the advantage or disadvantage which we are expected to reap from such inquiries ; the question is merely, how far reason can advance in the field of speculation, apart from all kinds of interest, and whether we may depend upon the exer tions of speculative reason, or must renounce all reliance on it. Instead of joining the combatants, it is your part to be a tranquil spectator of the struggle --a laborious struggle for the parties engaged, but attended, in its progress as well as in its result, with the most advantageous consequences for the interests of thought and knowledge. It is absurd to expect
? ? ? ? TIIE DISCIPLINE OF PUHE REASON. 455
to be enlightened by Reason, and at the same time to prescribe to her what side of the question she must adopt. Moreover, reason is sufficiently held in check by its own power, the limits imposed on it by its own nature are sufficient ; it is un necessary for you to place over it addition*! guards, as if its power were dangerous to the constitution of the intellectual state. In the dialectic of reason there is no victory gained, which needs in the least disturb your tranquillity.
The strife of dialectic is a necessity of reason, and we can not but wish that it had been conducted long ere this with that perfect freedom which ought to be its essential condition. In this case, we should have had at an earlier period a ma tured and profound criticism, which must have put an end to all dialectical disputes, by exposing the illusions and preju dices in which they originated. --
There is in human nature an unworthy propensity
pensity which, like everything that springs from nature, must in its final purpose be conducive to the good of humanity-- to conceal our real sentiments, and to give expression only to certain received opinions, which are regarded as at once safe and promotive of the common good. It is true, this ten dency, not only to conceal our real sentiments, but to profess those which may gain us favour in the eyes of society, has not only civilized, but, in a certain measure, moralized us ; as no one can break through the outward covering of re spectability, honour, and morality, and thus the seemingly- good examples which we see around us, form an excellent school for moral improvement, so long as our belief in their
remains unshaken. But this disposition to re present ourselves as better than we are, and to utter opinions which are not our own, can be nothing more than a kind of provisionary arrangement of nature to lead us from the rude ness of an uncivilised state, and to teach us how to assume at least the appearance and manner of the good we see. But when true principles have been developed, and have obtained b sure foundation in our habit of thought, this convention alism must be attacked with earnest vigour, otherwise it cor rupts the heart, and checks the growth of good dispositions with the mischievous weed of fair appearances.
I am sorry to remark the same tendency to misrepresenta tion and hypocrisy in the sphere of speculative discussion,
? genuineness
a pro
? ? ? 456 TRAJISCENDElfTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
where there is less temptation to restrain the free expression of thought. For what can be more prejudicial to the interests of intelligence, than to falsify our real sentiments, to conceal the doubts which we feel in regard to our statements, or to maintain the validity of grounds of proof which we well know to be insufficient ? So long as mere personal vanity is the source of these unworthy artifices, --and this is generally the case in speculative discussions, which are mostly destitute of
practical interest, and are incapable of complete demonstra tion, --the vanity of the opposite party exaggerates as much on the other side ; and thus the result is the same, although it is not brought about so soon as if the dispute had been conducted in a sincere and upright spirit. But where the mass entertains the notion that the aim of certain snbtle
speculators is nothing less than to shake the very founda tions of public welfare and morality, -- it seems not only prudent, but even praiseworthy, to maintain the good cause by illusory arguments, rather than to give to our supposed opponents the advantage of lowering our declarations to the moderate tone of a merely practical conviction, and of com pelling us to confess our inability to attain to apodeictic cer tainty in speculative subjects. But we ought to reflect that there is nothing in the world more fatal to the maintenance of a good cause than deceit, misrepresentation, and falsehood. That the strictest laws of honesty should be observed in the discussion of a purely speculative subject, is the least require ment that can be made. If we could reckon with security
even upon bo little, the conflict of speculative reason regarding the important questions of God, immortality, and freedom, would have been either decided long ago, or would very soon be brought to a conclusion. But, in general, the uprightness of the defence stands in an inverse ratio to the goodness of the cause ; and perhaps more honesty and fairness are shown by those who deny, than by those who uphold these doc
trines.
I shall persuade myself, then, that I have readers who do
not wish to see a righteous cause defended by unfair argu ments. Such will now recognise the fact that, according to the principles of this Critique, if we consider not what but what ought to be the case, there can be really no polemic of pure reason. For how can two persons dispute about thing.
? ? ? a
is,
? THE DISCIPLINE OF POliE BEASO5. 457
the reality of which neither can present in actual or even in
possible experience ? Each adopts the plan of meditating on his idea for the purpose of drawing from the idea, if he can, what is more than the idea, that is, the reality of the object which it indicates. How shall they settle the dispute, since neither is able to make his assertions directly comprehensible and cer tain, but must restrict himself to attacking and confutiug those of his opponent? All statements enounced by pure reason transcend the conditions of possible experience, beyond the sphere of which we can discover no criterion of truth, while they are at the same time framed in accordance with the laws of the understanding, which are applicable only to experience ; and thus it is the fate of all such speculative dis cussions, that while the one party attacks the weaker side of his opponent, he infallibly lays open his own weaknesses.
The critique of pure reason may be regarded as the highest tribunal for all speculative disputes ; for it is not involved in these disputes, which have an immediate relation to certain ob jects and not to the laws of the mind, but is instituted for the purpose of determining the rights and limits of reason.
Without the control of criticism reason as were, in
state of nature, and can only establish its claims and assertions
? by war. Criticism, on the contrary, deciding all questions according to the fundamental laws of its own institution, secures to us the peace of law and order, and enables us to discuss all differences in the more tranquil manner of
legal victory, hollow armistice in the latter, by sentence, which, as strikes
process. In the former case, disputes are ended which both sides may claim, and which followed
at the root of all speculative differences, ensures to all con
cerned lasting peace. The endless disputes of dog matising reason compel us to look for some mode of arriving at settled decision critical investigation of reason itself; just as Hobbes maintains that the state of nature state of injustice and violence, and that we must leave and submit ourselves to the constraint of law, which indeed limits indi vidual freedom, but only that may consist with the freedom of others and with the common good of all.
This freedom will, among other things, permit of our openly stating the difficulties and doubts which we are ourselves un able to solve, without being decried on that accouut as tut*
? ? it
a
it
it it byby
is a
aaa
a
a
;
by a
is
is,
a
? 458 TBAKSCEXDEKTAL DOCTltlKE OT METHOD.
buleut and dangerous citizens. This privilege forms part of the native rights of human reason, which recognises no other judge than the universal reason of humanity ; and as this reason is the source of all progress and improvement, such a privilege is to be held sacred and inviolable. It is unwise, moreover, to denounce as dangerous, any bold assertions against, or rash attacks upon, an opinion which is held by the largest and most moral class of the community ; for that would be giving them an importance which they do not de serve. When I hear that the freedom of the will, the hope of a future life, and the existence of God have been over thrown by the arguments of some able writer, I feel a strong desire to read his book ; for I expect that he will add to my knowledge, and impart greater clearness and distinctness to my views by the argumentative power shown in his writings.
But I am perfectly certain, even before I have opened the book, that he has not succeeded in a single point, not because I believe I am in possession of irrefutable demonstrations of these important propositions, but because this transcendental critique, which has disclosed to me the power and the limits of pure reason, has fully convinced me that, as it is insuffi cient to establish the affirmative, it is as powerless, and even more so, to assure us of the truth of the negative answer to these questions. From what source does this free-thinker derive his knowledge that there for example, no Supreme
Being? This proposition lies out of the field of possible ex perience, and, therefore, beyond the limits of human cogni tion. But would not read at all the answer which the dog- mntical maintainer of the good cause makes to his opponent, because know well beforehand, that lie wdl merely attack the fallacious grounds of his adversary, without being able to establish his own assertions. Besides, a new illusory argu ment, in the construction of which talent and acuteness are shown, suggestive of new ideas and new trains of reasoning,
and in this respect the old and every-day sophistries are quite useless. Again, the dogmatical opponent of religion gives
? to criticism, and enables us to test and correct its principles, while there no occasion for anxiety in regard to the influence and results of his reasoning.
But, will be said, must we not warn the youth entrust to academical care against such writings, must we not p. <<
employment
? ? it
is
I
I
i u
is
is,
? TBE DlSCIPI. tNK OF PUBS SEASON. 459
serve tliem from the knowledge of these dangerous assertions, ontil their judgment is ripened, or rather until the doctrines which we wish to inculcate are so firmly rooted in their minds as to withstand all attempts at instilling the contrary dogmas, from whatever quarter they may come ?
If we are to confine ourselves to the dogmatical procedure in the sphere of pure reason, and find ourselves unable to settle such disputes otherwise than by becoming a party in them, and setting counter-assertions against the statements advanced by our opponents, there is certainly no plan more advisable tor the moment, but, at the same time, none more absurd and inefficient for the future, than this retaining of the youthful mind under guardianship for a time, and thus preserving it
? --for so long at least--from seduction into error. But when, at a later period, either curiosity, or the prevalent fashion of thought, places such writings in their hands, will the so-called convictions of their youth stand firm ? The young thinker, who has in his armory none but dogmatical weapons with which to resist the attacks of his opponent, and who cannot detect the latent dialectic which lies in his own opinions as well as in those of the opposite party, sees the advance of illusory arguments and grounds of proof which have the advantage of novelty, against as illusory grounds of proof destitute of this advantage, and which, perhaps, excite the suspicion that the natural credulity of his youth lias been abused by his instructors. He thinks he can find no better means of shewing that he has outgrown the discipline of his minority, than by despising those well-meant warnings, and,
knowing no system of thought but that of dogmatism, he drinks deep draughts of the poison that is to sap the principles in which his early years were trained.
Exactly the opposite of the system here recommended ought to be pursued in academical instruction. This can only be effected, however, by a thorough training in the critical investigation of pure reason. For, in order to bring the prin ciples of this critique into exercise as soon as possible, and to demonstrate their perfect sufficiency, even in the presence of the highest degree of dialectical illusion, the student ought t<<
the assertions made on both sides of speculative
examine
Jutesctainonost be a difficult task for him to show the fallacies
step by step, and to test them by these principles,
? ? ? 460 TRAK8CEXDE5TAT, DOCTRIKI OF METHOD.
inherent in these propositions, and thus he begins early tc
feel his own power of securing himself against the influence
of such sophistical arguments, which must finally lose, for him, all their illusory power. And, although the same blows which overturn the edifice of his opponent are as fatal to his own speculative structures, if such he has wished to rear ; he need not feel any sorrow in regard to this seeming misfortune, as he has now before him afair prospect into the practical region, in which he may reasonably hope to find a more secure foun
dation for a rational system.
There accordingly, no proper polemic the sphere of pure reason. Both parties beat the air and fight with their own shadows, as they pass beyond the limits of nature, and can find no tangible point of attack --no firm footing for their dogmatical conflict. Fight as vigorously as they may, the shadows which they hew down, immediately start up again, like the heroes in Walhalla, and renew the bloodless and un ceasing contest.
But neither can we admit that there any proper sceptical employment of pure reason, such as might be based upon the principle of neutrality in all speculative disputes. To excite reason against itself, to place weapons the hands of the party on the one side as well as those of the other, and to remain an undisturbed and sarcastic spectator of the fierce btruggle that ensues, seems, from the dogmatical point of view,
to be part fitting only malevolent disposition. But, when the sophist evidences an invincible obstinacy and blindness, and pride which no criticism can moderate, there no other practicable course than to oppose to this pride and obstinacy similar feelings and pretensions on the other side, equally well or ill founded, so that reason, staggered the reflections thus forced upon finds necessary to moderate its con fidence in such pretensions, and to listen to the advices criticism. But we cannot stop at these doubts, much less regard the conviction of our ignorance, not only as cure for the conceit natural to dogmatism, but as the settlement of the disputes in which reason involved with itself. On the con trary, scepticism merely means of awakening reason from its dogmatic dreams, and exciting to more careful investi gation into its own powers and pretensions. But, as scepticism
? ? ? it a
in
is
it,
a is
it
by
a is
in
of
a
a
a
is in
is,
? ? SCEPTICISM NOT A PERMANENT STATE FOB BEA801C. 461
appears to be the shortesi road to a permanent peace in the domain of philosophy, and as it is the track pursued by the many who aim at giving a philosophical colouring to their
dislike of all inquiries of this kind, I think it necessary to present to my readers this mode of thought in its true light.
contemptuous
Scepticism not a Permanent State for Human Reason.
The consciousness of ignorance --unless this ignorance is recognized to be absolutely necessary --ought, instead of form ing the conclusion of my inquiries, to be the strongest motive to the pursuit of them. All ignorance is either ignorance of things, or of the limits of knowledge. If my ignorance
is accidental and not necessary, it m"st incite me, in the first case, to a dogmatical inquiry regarding the objects of which I am ignorant ; in the second, to a critical investigation into the bounds of all possible knowledge. But that my ignorance is absolutely necessary and unavoidable, and that it
? absolves from the duty of all farther investiga tion, is a fact which cannot be made out upon empirical grounds -- from observation, but upon critical grounds alone, that thorough-going investigation into the primary sources of cognition. It follows that the determination
the bounds of reason can be made only on a priori grounds while the empirical limitation of reason, which merely an
indeterminate cognition of an ignorance that can never be com pletely removed, can take place only posteriori. In other words, our empirical knowledge limited by that which yet remains for us to know. The former cognition of our ignorance, which possible only on a rational basis, science the latter merely perception, and we cannot say how far the inferences drawn from may extend. If regard the earth, as really appears to my senses, as flat surface, am igno
rant how far this surface extends. But experience teaches me that, how far soever go, nlwaj see before me a space in which can proceed farther and thus know the limits-- merely visual --of my actual knowledge of the earth, although
am ignorant of the limits of the earth itself. But have get so far as to know that the earth sphere, and that its surface spherical, can cognize a prion and determine upon principles, from my knowledge of small part of this
consequently
? ? a
I
I
is
is
by a
I
I
it
is a
s is a
a
I
it
if I
is ;
I
is is
is,
I ;
a I
a
; of
? 462 TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTBnJE OT METHOD.
surface-- say to the extent of a degree -- the diameter nnd cir cumference of the earth ; and although I am ignorant of the objects which this surface contains, I have a perfect know ledge of its limits and extent.
The sum of all the possible objects of our cognition seems to us to be a level surface, with an apparent horizon-- that which forms the limit of its extent, and which has been termed by us the idea of unconditioned totality. To reach tins limit by empirical means is impossible, and all attempts to determine it a priori according to a principle, are alike in vain. But all the questions raised by pure reason relate to that which lies beyond this horizon, or, at least, in its boundary line.
The celebrated David Hume was one of those geographers
of human reason who believe that they have given a sufficient
answer to all such questions, by declaring them to lie beyond the horizon of our knowledge --a horizon which, however, Hume was unable to determine. His attention especially was directed to the principle of causality ; and he remarked with perfect justice, that the truth of this principle, and even the objective validity of the conception of a cause, was not commonly based upon clear height, that upon priori cognition. Hence he concluded that this law does not derive its authority from its universality and necessity, but merely from its general appli cability in the course of experience, and kind of subjective necessity thence arising, which he termed habit. From the inability of reason to establish this principle as necessary law for the acquisition of all experience, he inferred the nullity of all the attempts of reason to pass the region of the empirical.
This procedure, of subjecting the facta of reason to exami
nation, and, necessary, to disapproval, may be termed the censura of reason. This Centura must inevitably lead ns to doubts regarding all transcendent employment of principles. But this only the second step in our inquiry. The first step in regard to the subjects of pure reason, and which marks the infancy of that faculty, that of dogmatism. The second, which we have just mentioned, that of scepticism, and gives evidence that our judgment has been improved by experience. But third step necessary --indicative of the maturity and manhood of the judgment, which now lays firm
? ? ? a
a
is
is
is, a
it
is
is
a
if
a
? SCEPTICISM HOT A PERMANENT STATE *OB ItEA8OW. 463
foundation upon universal and necessary principles. This is the period of criticism, in which we do not examine the facta of reason, but reason itself, in the whole extent of its powers, and in regard to its capability of a priori cognition ; and thus we determine not merely the empirical and ever-shifting bounds of our knowledge, but its necessary and eternal limits. We demonstrate from indubitable principles, not merely our ignorance in respect to this or that subject, but in regard to all possible questions of a certain class. Thus scepticism is a resting-place for reason, in which it may reflect on its dog matical wanderings, and gain some knowledge of the region in which it happens to be, that it may pursue its way with greater certainty ; but it cannot be its permanent dwelling- place. It must take up its abode only in the region of com plete certitude, whether this relates to the cognition of objects themselves, or to the limits which bound all our cognition.
Raoson is not to be considered as an indefinitely extended plane, of the bounds of which we have only a general know ledge ; it ought rather to be compared to a sphere, the radius of which may be found from the curvature of its surface -- that the nature of priori synthetical propositions -- and, consequently, its circumference and extent. Beyond the sphere of experience there are no objects which can cognize
nay, even questions regarding such supposititious objects relate only to the subjective principles of complete determination of the relations which exist between the understanding-con ceptions which lie within this sphere.
We are actually in possession of a priori synthetical cog nitions, as proved by the" existence of the principles of the understanding, which anticipate experience. If any one cannot comprehend the possibility of these principles, he may have some reason to doubt whether they are really a priori but he cannot on this account declare them to be impossible, and affirm the nullity of the steps which reason may have taken under their guidance. He can only say we perceived their origin and their authenticity, we should be able to determine the extent and limits of reason but, till we can do this, all
regarding the latter are mere random assertions. In this view, the doubt respecting all dogmatical philosophy, which proceeds without the guidance of criticism, well
but we cannot therefore deny to reason the ability
? propositions grounded
? ? ;
is
is
;
;
: If
a
;
it
is,
a
? 464 TBAvaoinrairrAL doctrine or Kxthod.
to construct a sound philosophy, when the way has been prepared by a thorough critical investigation. All the con ceptions produced, and all the questions raised, by pure reason, do not lie in the sphere of experience, but in that of leason itself, and hence they must be solved, and shown to be either valid or inadmissible, by that faculty. We have no right to decline the solution of such problems, on the ground that the solution can be discovered only from the nature of things, and under pretence of the limitation of human facul ties, for reason is the sole creator of all these ideas, and is therefore bound either to establish their validity or to expose their illusory nature.
The polemic of scepticism is properly directed against the dogmatist, who erects a system of philosophy without having examined the fundamental objective principles on which it is basod, for the purpose of evidencing the futility of his designs, and thus bringing him to a knowledge of his own powers. But, in itself, scepticism does not give us any certain informa tion in regard to the bounds of our knowledge. All unsuccess ful dogmatical attempts of reason are facta, which it is always useful to submit to Hie censure of the sceptic. But this can not help us to any decision regarding the expectations which reason cherishes of better success in future endeavours ; the
investigations of scepticism cannot, therefore, settle the dispute regarding the rights and powers of human reason.
Hume is perhaps the ablest and most ingenious of nll scep tical philosophers, and his writings have, undoubtedly, ex erted the most powerful influence in awakening reason to ?
? into its own powers.
It will, therefore, well repay our labours to consider for a little the course of
out on the path of truth and
Hume was probably awnre, although he never clearly de veloped the notion, that we proceed in judgments of a certain class beyond our conception of the object. I have termed this kind of judgments synthetical. As regards the manner in which I pass beyond my conception by the aid of experience, no doubts can be entertained. Experience is itself a synthesis
of perceptions ; and it employs perceptions to increment the conception, which I obtain by means of another perception
thorough investigation
which he followed, and the errors into which he
reasoning
strayed, although setting certitude.
? ? ? tflfc lHSCtfLtiTB O* FT/RE BEABO*.
105
But we feel persuaded that we are able to proceed beyoud a Conception, and to extend our cognition a priori. We attempt this in two ways -- either, through the pure un derstanding, in relation to that which may become an object of experience, or, through pure reason, in relation to such properties of things, or of the existence of things, as can never he presented in any experience. This sceptical philosopher did not distinguish these two kinds of judgments, as he ought to have done, but regarded this augmentation of conceptions and, if we may so express ourselves, the spontaneous gene ration of understanding and reason, independently of the impregnation of experience, as altogether impossible. The so-called a priori principles of these faculties he consequently held to be invalid and imaginary, and regarded them as nothing but subjective habits of thought originating in ex- perience, and therefore purely empirical and contingent rules, to which we attribute a spurious necessity and universality. In support of this strange assertion, he referred us to the generally acknowledged principle of the relation between cause and effect. No faculty of the mind can conduct us from the conception of a thing to the existence of something else ; and hence lie believed he could infer that, without experience, we possess no source from which we can augment a conception, and no ground sufficient to justify us in framing a judgment that is to extend our cognition a priori. That the light of the sun, which shines upon a piece of wax, at the same time melts
while hardens clay, no power of the understanding could infer from the conceptions which we previously possessed of these substances much less there any a priori law that could conduct us to such conclusion, which experience alone can certify. On the other hand, we have seen in our discussion of Transcendental Logic, that, although we can never proceed immediately beyond the content of the conception which given us, we can always cognize completely priori -- in rela tion, however, to third term, namely, possible experience --the law of its connection with other things. For example, ob serve that piece of wax melts, can cognize priori that there must have been something (the sun's heat) preceding, which this effect follows according to fixed law although, without the aid of experience, could not cognize priori and in de
terminate manner, either the cause from the effect, or the effect
? ? ? a;
a
a
if aI
a
it a;
I
aI is
is
a
it,
? 466 IHANSC? NDEKTA1, DOOTBTlr* Of itXTUOO.
firoiu the cause. Hume was therefore wrong in inferring, from the contingency of the determination according to law, the contingency of tht law itself ; and the passing beyond the conception of a thing to possible experience (which is an a priori proceeding, constituting the objective realitv of the conception), he confounded with our synthesis of objects in actual experience, which is always, of course, empirical. Thus, too, he regarded the principle of affinity, which, has its seat in the understanding and indicates a necessary connection, ns a mere rule of association, lying in the imitative faculty of imagination, which can present only contingent, and not ob jective connections.
The sceptical errors of this remarkably acute thinker arose
principally from a defect, which was common to him with the
dogmatists, namely, that he had never made a systematic review of all the different kinds of a priori synthesis performed by the understanding. Had he done so, he would have found, to take one example among many, that the principle of per manence was of this character, and that as well as the principle of causality, anticipates experience. In this way he might have been able to describe the determinate limits of the
priori operations of understanding and reason. But he merely declared the understanding to be limited, instead of showing what its limits were he created general mistrust
the power of our faculties, without giving us any determi nate knowledge of the bounds of our necessary and unavoidable ignorance he examined and condemned some of the princi ples of the understanding, without investigating all its powers with the completeness necessary to criticism. He denies, with truth, certain powers to the understanding, but he goes further, and declares to be utterly inadequate to the a priori
extension of knowledge, although he has not fully examined all the powers which reside in the faculty and thus the fate which always overtakes scepticism meets him too. That to say, his own declarations are doubted, for his objections were based upon facta, which are contingent, and not upon prin ciples, which can alone demonstrate the necessary invalidity of all dogmatical assertions.
As Hume makes no distinction between the well-grounded claims of the understanding and the dialectical pretensions of reason, agniDit which, however, his attacks arc mainly directed.
? ? ? is
;
a
it
;
in
a
;
it,
? THE DISCIPLINE OF PtJllE BEASOJT.
467
reason does not feel itself shut ont from all attempts at the extension of a priori cognition, and hence it refuses, in spite of a few checks iu this or that quarter, to relinquish such efforts. For one naturally arms oue's-self to resist an attack, and be comes more obstinate in the resolve to establish the claims he has advanced. But a complete review of the powers of reason, and the conviction thence arising that we are in possession of a limited field of action, while we must admit the vanity of higher claims, puts an end to all doubt and dispute, and in duces reason to rest satisfied with the undisturbed possession of its limited domain.
To the uncritical dogmatist, who has not surveyed the sphere
of his understanding, nor determined, in accordance with prin
ciples, the limits of possible cognition, who, consequently, is ignorant of his own powers, and believes he will discover theru by the attempts he makes in the field of cognition, these at tacks of scepticism are not only dangerous, but destructive. For if there is one proposition in his chain of reasoning which he cannot prove, or the fallacy in which he cannot evolve in accordance with a principle, suspicion falls on all his str. te- ? nenU, however plausible they may appear.
And thus scepticism, the bane of dogmatical philosophy, conducts us to a sound investigation into the understanding and the reason. When we are thus far advanced, we need fear no farther attacks ; for the limits of our domain are clearly marked out, and we can make no claims nor becom* involved in any disputes regarding the region that lies beyond these limits. Thus the sceptical procedure in philosophy does not present any solution of the problems of reason, but it forms an excellent exercise for its powers, awakening its cir cumspection, and indicating the means whereby it may most fully establish its claims to its legitimate possessions.
CHAPTER FIRST. Section Thim).
The Discipline of Pure Reason in Hypothesis.
This critique of reason has now taught us that all its efforts to extend the bounds of knowledge, by means of pure specu lation, are utterly fruitless. So much the wider field, it may
HB2
? ? ? ? 408 TllAKSOEKDENTAL DOOTBtNE Of METIIOU.
appear, lies open to hypothesis ; as, where we cannot know with certainty, we are at liberty to make guesses, and to form suppositions.
Imagination may be allowed, under the strict surveillance of reason, to invent suppositions ; but, these must be based on something that is perfectly certain --and that is the possi bility of the object. If we are well assured upou this point, it is allowable to have recourse to supposition in regard to the reality of the object ; but this supposition must, unless it is utterly groundless, be connected, as its ground of ex planation, with that which is really given and absolutely cer tain. Such a supposition is termed a hypothesis.
It is beyond our power to form the least conception a prion of the possibility of dynamical connection in phenomena ; and the category of the pure understanding will not enable us to excogitate any such connection, but merely helps us to understand when we meet with in experience. For this reason we cannot, in accordance with the categories, imagine or invent any object or any property of an object not given, or that may not be given in experience, and employ in hypothesis otherwise, we should be basing our chain of rea soning upon mere chimerical fancies, and not upon concep tions of things. Thus, we have no right to assume the ex istence of new powers, not existing in nature, --for example, an understanding with non-sensuous intuition, force of at traction without contact, or some new kind of substances occupying space, and yet without the property of impenetra bility and, consequently, we cannot assume that there any other kind of community among substances than that observ able in experience, any kind of presence than that in space, or any kind of duration than that in time. In one word, the conditions of possible experience are for reason the only con ditions of the possibility of things reason cannot venture to form, independently of these conditions, any conceptions of things, because such conceptions, although not self-contradic tory, are without object and without application.
The conceptions of reason are, as we have already shown, mere ideas, and do not relate to any object in any kind of ex perience. At the same time, they do not indicate imaginary or possible objects. They are purely problematical in their nature, and, as aids to the heuristic exercise of the faculties
? ? ? ;
it
;
is
it a
a
a
;
it,
? THE DISCrPIJITS OF PUBE REASON.
169
form the basis of the regulative principles for the systematic employment of the understanding in the field of experience. If we leave this ground of experience, they become mere fictions of thought, the possibility of which is quite indemon strable ; and they cannot consequently be employed, as hypo theses, in the explanation of real phenomena. It is quite admissible to cogitate the soul as simple, for the purpose of enabling ourselves to employ the idea of a perfect and neces sary unity of all the faculties of the mind as the principle of ail our inquiries into its internal phsenomena, although we cannot cognize this unity in concrete But to assume that the
soul is a simple substance (a transcendental conception) would be enouncing a proposition which is not only indemonstrable --as many physical hypotheses are, but a proposition which is purely arbitrary, and in the highest degree rash. The simple is never presented in experience ; and, if by substance
is here meant the permanent object of sensuous intuition, the possibility of a simple phenomenon is perfectly inconceivable. Reason affords no good grounds for admitting the existence of intelligible beings, or of intelligible properties of sensuous things, although --as we have no conception either of their possibility or of their impossibility--it will always be out of our power to affirm dogmatically that they do not exist.
In the explanation of given phsenomena, no other things and no other grounds of explanation can be employed, than those which stand in connection with the given phsenomena according to the known laws of experience. A transcendental hypothesis, in which a mere idea of reason is employd to ex plain the phsenomena of nature, would not give us any better insight into a phenomenon, as we should be trying to ex plain what we do not sufficiently understand from known em pirical principles, by what we do not understand at all. The- principle of such a hypothesis might conduce to the satisfac tion of reason, but it would not assist the understanding in its application to objects. Order and conformity to aims in the sphere of nature must be themselves explained upon natural grounds and according to natural laws ; and the wild est hypotheses, if they are only physical, are here more ad missible than a hyperphysical hypothesis, such as that of a divine author. For such a hypothesis would introduce the principle of ignaea ratio, w? iich requires us to giv<< up the
? ? ? ? 470 TBANSCENDEHTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
search for causes that might be discovered in the course of experience, and to rest satisfied with a mere idea. As regards the absolute totality of the grounds of explanation in the series of these causes, this can be no hindrance to the understanding in the case of phenomena ; because, as they are to us nothing more than phsenomena, we have no right to look for anything like completeness in the synthesis of the series of their con ditions.
Transcendental hypotheses are therefore inadmissible ; and we
cannot use the liberty of employing, in the absence of physical,
hyperphysical grounds of explanation. And this for two reasons ; first, because such hypotheses do not advance reason, but rather stop it in its progress ; secondly, because this licence would render fruitless all its exertions in its own proper sphere, which ia that of experience. For, when the explanation of natural phsenomena happens to be difficult, we have constantly at hand a transcendental ground of explanation, which lifts us above the necessity of investigating nature ; and our in quiries are brought to a close, not because we have obtained all the requisite knowledge, but because we abut upon a principle, which is incomprehensible, and which, indeed, is so far back in the track of thought, as to contain the conception of the absolutely primal being.
The next requisite for the admissibility of a hypothesis is its sufficiency. That must determine priori the conse
quences which are given in experience, and which are supposed to follow from the hypothesis itself. If we require to employ
auxiliary hypotheses, the suspicion naturally arises that they are mere fictions because the necessity for each of them requires the same justification as in the case of the original hypothesis, and thus their testimony invalid. If we suppose the existence of an infinitely perfect cause, we possess suffi cient grounds for the explanation of the conformity to aims, the order and the greatness which we observe the universe but we find ourselves obliged, when we observe the evil in the world and the exceptions to these laws, to employ new hypo theses in support of the original one. We employ the idea of the simple nature of the human soul as the foundation of all the theories we may form of its phenomena but when we meet with difficulties in our way, when we observe in the soul phsenomena similar to the changes which take place
? ? ? ;
in ;
in
is
;
is, it
a
? THB DISCIPLINE Or PURE UEASOIT. 471
matter, we require to call in new auxiliary hypotheses. These may, inched, not be false, but we do not kuow them to be true, because the only witness to their certitude is the hypothesis which they themselves have been called in to explain.
We are not discussing the above-mentioned assertions re
garding the immaterial unity of the soul and the existence of
a Supreme Being, as dogmata, which certain philosophers pro
fess to demonstrate a priori, but purely as hypotheses. In the
former case, the dogmatist must take care that his arguments
possess the apodeictic certainty of a demonstration. For thf
assertion that the reality of such ideas is probable, is as absurd
as a proof of the probability of a proposition in geometry. Pure abstract reason, apart from all experience, can either cog
nize a proposition entirely a priori, and as necessary, or it can cognize nothing at all ; and hence the judgments it enounces are never mere opinions, they are either apodeictic certainties, or declarations that nothing can be known on the subject. Opinions and probable judgments on the nature of things can only be employed to explain given phenomena, or they may relate to the effect, in accordance with empirical laws, of an actually existing cause. In other words, we must restrict the sphere of opinion to the world of experience and nature. Beyond this region opinion is mere invention ; unless we are groping about for the truth on a path not yet fully known, and have some hopes of stumbling upon it by chance.
But, although hypotheses are inadmissible in answers to the questions of pure speculative reason, they may be em ployed in the defence of these answers. That is to say, hypo theses are admissible in polemic, but not in the sphere of dogmatism. By the defenee of statements of this character, I do not mean an attempt at discovering new grounds for their support, but merely the refutation of the arguments of opponents. All a priori synthetical propositions possess the peculiarity, that, although the philosopher who maintains the reality of the ideas contained in the proposition, is not in pos session of sufficient knowledge to establish the certainty of his statements, his opponent is as little able to prove the truth of the opposite. This equality of fortune does not Allow the one party to be superior to the other in the sphere of specu lative cognition ; and it is this sphere accordingly that is the proper arena of these endless speculative conflicts. But we
? ? ? ? 472 rBAKSCENDENTAl DOCTB1NE OF METHOD.
shall afterwards show that, in relation to its practical exercise, Reason has the right of admitting what, in the field of pure speculation, she would not be justified in supposing, except upon perfectly sufficient grounds ; because all such supposi
tions destroy the necessary completeness of speculation --a condition which the practical reason, however, does not con sider to be requisite. Iu this sphere, therefore, Reason is mis tress of a possession, her title to which she does not require to prove --which, in fact, she could not do. The burden of proof accordingly rests upon the opponent. But as he has just as little knowledge regarding the subject discussed, and is as little able to prove the non-existence of the object of mi idea, as the philosopher on the other side is to demonstrate its reality, it is evident that there is an advantage on the side of the philosopher who maintains his proposition as a practi cally necessary supposition (melior est conditio possidentis). For he is at liberty to employ, in self-defence, the same wea pons as his opponent makes use of in attacking him ; that
lie has right to use hypotheses not for the purpose of sup porting the arguments favour of his own propositions, but to show that his opponent knows no more than himself re garding the subject under discussion, and cauuot boast of any
speculative advantage.
Hypotheses are, therefore, admissible the sphere of pure
reason, only as weapons for self-defence, and not as supports to dogmatical assertions. But the opposing party we must always seek for in ourselves. For speculative reason the
sphere of transcendentalism, dialectical initsownnalure. The difficulties and objections we have to fear lie in ourselves. They are like old but never superannuated claims and we must seek them out, and settle them once and for ever, we are to expect permanent peace. External tranquillity hollow and unreal. The root of these contradictions, which lies the nature of human reason, must be destroyed and this can only be done, giving in the first instance, freedom to
? that may send out shoots, and our duty, therefore, to try to discover new objections, to put weapons the hands of
grow, nay, by nourishing thus betray its own existence.
our opponent, and to grant him the most favourable position in the arena that he can wish. We have nothing to fear from these concessions on the contrary, we may rather hope thai
? ? ;
It it is
it, it,
in
in ;
a by
in
is,
;
is,
is if
in
in
a
? THE DISCIPLINE OF PURE SEASON. 473
we shall thus make ourselves master of a possession which no one will ever venture to dispute.
The thinker requires, to be fully equipped, the hypotheses of pure reason, which, although but leaden weapons, (for they have not been steeled in the armoury of experience), are as useful as any that can be employed by his opponents. If, ac cordingly, we have assumed, from a non-speculative point of view, the immaterial nature of the soul, and are met by the ob jection that experience seems to prove that the growth and decay of our mental faculties are mere modifications of the sensuous organism, --we can weaken the force of this objection, by the assumption that the body is nothing but the fundamental phe nomenon, to which, as a necessary condition, all sensibility, and consequently all thought, relates in the present state of our existence ; and that the separation of soul and body forms the conclusion of the sensuous exercise of our power of cog nition, and the beginning of the intellectual. The body
would, in this view of the question, be regarded, not as the cause of thought, but merely as its restrictive condition, as promotive of the sensuoas and animal, but as a hindrance to the pure and spiritual life ; and the dependence of the animal life on the constitution of the body, would not prove that the whole life of man was also dependent on the state of the organism. We might go still farther, and discover new objections, or carry out to their extreme consequences those which have already been adduced.
Generation, in the human race as well as among the ir rational animals, depends on so many accidents --of occasion, of proper sustenance, of the laws enacted by the government of a country, of vice even, that it is difficult to believe in the eternal existence of a being, whose life has begun under cir cumstances so mean and trivial, and so entirely dependent upon our own control. As regards the continuance of the ex istence of the whole race, we need have no difficulties, for accident in single cases is subject to geueral laws ; but, in the case of each individual, it would seem as if we could hardly ex
pect so wonderful an effect from causes so insignificant. But, in answer to these objections, we may adduce the transcendental hypothesis, that all life is properly intelligible, and not subject to changes of time, aud that it neither began in birth, nor will end iu death. We may assume that thi>> life is nothing mon
? ? ? ? 474 TRANSCEND EST AO. DOCTKINB OF METHOD.
than a sensuous representation of pure spiritual life ; that tlie whole world of sense is bnt an image, hovering before the faculty of cognition which we exercise in this sphere, and with no more objective reality than a dream ; and that if we could intuite ourselves and other things as they really are, we should see ourselves in a world of spiritual natures, our connection with which did not begin at our birth, and will not cease with the destruction of the body. And so on.
We cannot be said to know what has been above asserted, nor do we seriously maintain the truth of these assertions ; and the notions therein indicated are not even ideas of reason, they are purely fictitious conceptions. But this hypothetical procedure is in perfect conformity with the laws of reason. Our opponent mistakes the absence of empirical conditions for a proof of the complete impossibility of all that we have as- erted ; and we have to show him that he has not exhausted the whole sphere of possibility, and that he can as little compass that sphere by the laws of experience and nature, as we can . ay a secure foundation for the operations of reason beyond the region of experience. Such hypothetical defences against the pretensions of an opponent must not be regarded as de clarations of opinion. The philosopher abandons them, so soon as the opposite party renounces its dogmatical conceit. To maintain a simply negative position in relation to propo sitions which rest on an insecure foundation, well befits the moderation of a true philosopher ; but to uphold the objections urged against an opponent as proofs of the opposite statement, is a proceeding just as unwarrantable and arrogant as it is to attack the position of a philosopher who advances affirmative propositions regarding such a subject.
It is evident, therefore, that hypotheses, in the speculative sphere, are valid, not as independent propositions, but only relatively to opposite transcendent assumptions. For, to make the principles of possible experience conditions of the possi bility of things in general is just as transcendent a procedure as to maintain the objective reality of ideas which can be ap plied to no objects except such as lie without the limits of possible experience. The judgments enounced by pure reason must be necessary, or they must not be enounced at all. Reason cannot trouble herself with opinions. But the hy potheses we have been discussing ate merely problematical
? ? ? ? TEE DISCIPLINE OF PUBE REASON.
475
judgments, which can neither be confuted nor proved ; while,
therefore, they are not personal opinions, they are indispensable as answers to objections which are liable to be raised. But wo mast take care to confine them to this function, and guard against any assumption on their part of absolute validity, a proceeding which would involve reason in inextricable diffi culties and contradictions.
CHAPTER FIRST.
Section Fourth.
The Discipline of Pure Reason in relation to Proofs.
It is a peculiarity which distinguishes the proofs of tran scendental synthetical propositions from those of all other a priori synthetical cognitions, that reason, in the case of the former, does not apply its conceptions directly to an object, but is first obliged to prove, a priori, the objective validity of these conceptions and the possibility of their syntheses. This is not merely a prudential rule, it is essential to the very possi bility of the proof of a transcendental proposition. If I am required to pass, a priori, beyond the conception of an object, I find that it is utterly impossible without the guidance of something which is not contained in the conception. In mathematics, it is a priori intuition that guides my synthesis ; and, in this case, all our conclusions may be drawn imme diately from pure intuition. In transcendental cognition, so long as we are dealing only with conceptions of the under standing, we are guided by possible experience. That is to say, a proof in the sphere of transcendental cognition does not show that the given conception (that of an event, for ex ample,) leads directly to another conception (that of a cause) --
for this would be a salt us which nothing can justify ; but it shows that experience itself, and consequently the object of experience, is impossible without the connection indicated by these conceptions. It follows that such a proof must demon strate \he possibility of arriving, synthetically and a priori, at a certain knowledge of things, which was not contained in our conceptions of these things. Unless we pay particular attention to this requirement, our proofs, instead of pursuing
? ? ? ? 4/6" TBJlSSCENDENTAI, doctbihb of method.
the straight path indicated by reason, follow the tortuous road of mere subjective association. The illusory conviction, which rests upon subjective causes oC^tssociation, and which is con sidered as resulting from the perception of a real and objective natural affinity, is always open to doubt and suspicion. For this reason, all the attempts which have been made to prove the principle of sufficient reason, have, according to the uni versal admission of philosophers, been quite unsuccessful ; and, before the appearance of transcendental criticism, it was considered better, as this principle could not be abandoned, to appeal boldly to the common sense of mankind (a proceed- ing which always proves that the problem, which reason ought to solve, is one in which philosophers find great diffi culties), rather than attempt to discover new dogmatical proofs.
But, if the proposition to be proved is a proposition of pure reason, and if I aim at passing beyond my empirical concep tions by the aid of mere ideas, it is necessary that the proof should first show that such a step in synthesis is possible (which it is not), before it proceeds to prove the truth of the proposition itself. The so-called proof of the simple nature of the soul from the unity of apperception, is a very plausible one. But it contains no answer to the objection, that, as the notion of absolute simplicity is not a conception which is directly applicable to a perception, but is an idea which must be inferred -- if at all -- from observation, it is by no means evident, how the mere fact of consciousness, which is contained in all thought, although in so far a simple representation, can conduct me to the consciousness and cognition of a thing which is purely a thinking substance. When I represent to my mind the power of my body as in motion, my body in this thought is so far absolute unity, and my representation of it is a simple one ; and hence I can indicate this representation by the motion of a point, because I have made abstraction of the size or volume of the body. But I cannot hence infer that, given merely the moving power of a body, the body may be cogitated as simple substance, merely because the representa
tion in my mind takes no account of its content in space, and is consequently simple. The simple, in abstraction, is very different from the objectively simple ; and hence the Ego, which is simple in the first sense, "nay, in the second aense, n>>
? ? ? ? titfi DlscitLUrfc ot ttrKB beasok.
477
indicating the soul itself, be a very complex conception, with a very various content. Thus it is evident, that in all such arguments, there lurks a paralogism.