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！
faculties of cognition we may entirely fail to see this necessity。 Accordingly； in respect of nature's merely empirical laws； we must think in nature a possibility of an endless multiplicity of empirical laws； which yet are contingent so far as our insight goes； i。e。； cannot be cognized a priori。 In respect of these we estimate the unity of nature according to empirical laws； and the possibility of the unity of experience； as a system according to empirical laws； to be contingent。 But； now； such a unity is one which must be necessarily presupposed and assumed； as otherwise we should not have a thoroughgoing connection of empirical cognition in a whole of experience。 For the universal laws of nature； while providing； certainly； for such a connection among things generically； as things of nature in general； do not do so for them specifically as such particular things of nature。 Hence judgement is compelled； for its own guidance； to adopt it as an a priori principle； that what is for human insight contingent in the particular （empirical） laws of nature contains nevertheless unity of law in the synthesis of its manifold in an intrinsically possible experience…unfathomable； though still thinkable； as such unity may； no doubt； be for us。 Consequently； as the unity of law in a synthesis； which is cognized by us in obedience to a necessary aim （a need of understanding）； though recognized at the same time as contingent； is represented as a finality of objects （here of nature）； so judgement； which； in respect of things under possible （yet to be discovered） empirical laws； is merely reflective； must regard nature in respect of the latter according to a principle of finality for our cognitive faculty； which then finds expression in the above maxims of judgement。 Now this transcendental concept of a finality of nature is neither a concept of nature nor of freedom； since it attributes nothing at all to the object； i。e。； to nature； but only represents the unique mode in which we must proceed in our reflection upon the objects of nature with a view to getting a thoroughly interconnected whole of experience； and so is a subjective principle； i。e。； maxim； of judgement。 For this reason； too； just as if it were a lucky chance that favoured us； we are rejoiced （properly speaking； relieved of a want） where we meet with such systematic unity under merely empirical laws： although we must necessarily assume the presence of such a unity； apart from any ability on our part to apprehend or prove its existence。 In order to convince ourselves of the correctness of this deduction of the concept before us； and the necessity of assuming it as a transcendental principle of cognition； let us just bethink ourselves of the magnitude of the task。 We have to form a connected experience from given perceptions of a nature containing a maybe endless multiplicity of empirical laws； and this problem has its seat a priori in our understanding。 This understanding is no doubt a priori in possession of universal laws of nature； apart from which nature would be incapable of being an object of experience at all。 But over and above this it needs a certain order of nature in its particular rules which are only capable of being brought to its knowledge empirically； and which； so far as it is concerned are contingent。 These rules； without which we would have no means of advance from the universal analogy of a possible experience in general to a particular； must be regarded by understanding as laws； i。e。； as necessary…for otherwise they would not form an order of nature…though it be unable to cognize or ever get an insight into their necessity。 Albeit； then； it can determine nothing a priori in respect of these （objects）； it must； in pursuit of such empirical so…called laws； lay at the basis of all reflection upon them an a priori principle； to the effect； namely； that a cognizable order of nature is possible according to them。 A principle of this kind is expressed in the following propositions。 There is in nature a subordination of genera and species comprehensible by us： Each of these genera again approximates to the others on a common principle； so that a transition may be possible from one to the other； and thereby to a higher genus： While it seems at outset unavoidable for our understanding to assume for the specific variety of natural operations a like number of various kinds of causality； yet these may all be reduced to a small number of principles； the quest for which is our business； and so forth。 This adaptation of nature to our cognitive faculties is presupposed a priori by judgement on behalf of its reflection upon it according to empirical laws。 But understanding all the while recognizes it objectively as contingent； and it is merely judgement that attributes it to nature as transcendental finality； i。e。； a finality in respect of the subject's faculty of cognition。 For； were it not for this presupposition； we should have no order of nature in accordance with empirical laws； and； consequently； no guiding…thread for an experience that has to be brought to bear upon these in all their variety； or for an investigation of them。 For it is quite conceivable that； despite all the uniformity of the things of nature according to universal laws； without which we would not have the form of general empirical knowledge at all； the specific variety of the empirical laws of nature； with their effects； might still be so great as to make it impossible for our understanding to discover in nature an intelligible order； to divide its products into genera and species so as to avail ourselves of the principles of explanation and comprehension of one for explaining and interpreting another； and out of material coming to hand in such confusion （properly speaking only infinitely multiform and ill…adapted to our power…of apprehension） to make a consistent context of experience。 Thus judgement； also； is equipped with an a priori principle for the possibility of nature； but only in a subjective respect。 By means of this it prescribes a law； not to nature （as autonomy）； but to itself （as heautonomy）； to guide its reflection upon nature。 This law may be called the law of the specification of nature in respect of its empirical laws。 It is not one cognized a priori in nature； but judgement adopts it in the interests of a natural order； cognizable by our understanding； in the division which it makes of nature's universal laws when it seeks to subordinate to them a variety of particular laws。 So when it is said that nature specifies its universal laws on a principle of finality for our cognitive faculties； i。e。； of suitability for the human understanding and its necessary function of finding the universal for the particular presented to it by perception； and again for varieties （which are； of course； common for each species） connection in the unity of principle； we do not thereby either prescribe a law to nature； or learn one from it by observation…although the principle in question may be confirmed by this means。 For it is not a principle of the determinant but merely of the reflective judgement。 All that is intended is that； no matter what is the order and disposition of nature in respect of its universal laws； we must investigate its empirical laws throughout on that principle and the maxims founded thereon； because only so far as that principle applies can we make any headway in the employment of our understanding in experience； or gain knowledge。
VI。 The Association of the Feeling of Pleasure with the Concept of the Finality of Nature。
The conceived harmony of nature in the manifold of its particular laws with our need of finding universality of principles for it must； so far as our insight goes； be deemed contingent； but withal indispensable for the requirements of our understanding； and； consequently； a finality by which nature is in accord with our aim； but only so far as this is directed to knowledge。 The universal laws of understanding； which are equally laws of nature； are； although arising from spontaneity； just as necessary for nature as the laws of motion applicable to matter。 Their origin does not presuppose any regard to our cognitive faculties； seeing that it