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！
not exist。 In the explanation of given phenomena； no other things
and no other grounds of explanation can be employed than those which
stand in connection with the given phenomena according to the known
laws of experience。 A transcendental hypothesis； in which a mere
idea of reason is employed to explain the phenomena of nature； would
not give us any better insight into a phenomenon； as we should be
trying to explain what we do not sufficiently understand from known
empirical principles； by what we do not understand at all。 The
principles of such a hypothesis might conduce to the satisfaction 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 wildest hypotheses； if they are only physical；
are here more admissible than a hyperphysical hypothesis； such as that
of a divine author。 For such a hypothesis would introduce the
principle of ignava ratio； which requires us to give up the 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 phenomena； we have no
right to look for anything like pleteness in the synthesis of the
series of their conditions。
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 hypothesis 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 is that of
experience。 For； when the explanation of natural phenomena 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 inquiries are brought to a close； not because we
have obtained all the requisite knowledge； but because we abut upon
a principle which is inprehensible 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 is； it must determine a priori the consequences
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 is
invalid。 If we suppose the existence of an infinitely perfect cause；
we possess sufficient grounds for the explanation of the conformity to
aims； the order and the greatness which we observe in the universe；
but we find ourselves obliged； when we observe the evil in the world
and the exceptions to these laws； to employ new hypothesis 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 phenomena similar to the changes which take
place in matter； we require to call in new auxiliary hypotheses。 These
may； indeed； not be false； but we do not know 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 regarding the
immaterial unity of the soul and the existence of a Supreme Being as
dogmata； which certain philosophers profess 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 the 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 cognize nothing at all； and hence the judgements it enounces
are never mere opinions； they are either apodeictic certainties； or
declarations that nothing can be known on the subject。 Opinions and
probable judgements 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 employed in the
defence of these answers。 That is to say； hypotheses are admissible in
polemic； but not in the sphere of dogmatism。 By the defence 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
possession 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 speculative cognition； and
it is this sphere； accordingly； that is the proper arena of these
endless speculative conflicts。 But we 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 suppositions