纯粹理性鉴定 第一版 网络版 译者序

“批判”还是“鉴定”

最初听说《纯粹理性批判》这本书时，总觉得怪怪的，什么意思呢？究竟要批判什么呢？随着笔者对本书第二版的翻译，逐步完成，发现，书中经常说自己是“判断标准（criteria）”，“批判”似乎应该是“鉴定”，才更合适些。那么原意究竟如何呢？我们先看书名。

批判对应的德文是：Kritik,用德英字典，结果是
Kritik ：n. (die) criticism, disapproval; inspection; censure, review, critique
这一串英文的意思，自己脑补，从后面几个看，应该是“评论”更恰当一些

批判，英文用的是critique,百度一下，用英英字典：
a serious examination and judgment of something：
翻译：对某物认真地审查和判断
简直就是鉴定的代名词不是？

鉴定：是鉴别审定事物的真伪、优劣。
而批判：是对被认为是错误的思想或言行批驳否定。例如：批判错误言行。

批判和鉴定，有重合的部分，但侧重又不太一样，
比如，现在中央台有个“鉴宝”的节目，总不能叫“批宝”吧？

从范围来讲，鉴定更大，包括正确的和错误的，批判，只针对错误的。
从内容来讲，这本书，根本目的，是为了建立形而上学，而不是打倒形而上学，是对理性的鉴定研究，而不是否认，所以“批判”与主旨不符。

翻译原则
以往的康德翻译，既给译者带来了诸多便利，这里是非常感谢的，但也带来很多问题，全部总结，等康德彻底翻完之后再总结。
目前的原则：
1. 总体原则：翻译和解释分开。翻译忠于原著，解释是译者的理解。
2. 由于是按英文版翻，所以尽量按英国人的理解来做，即尽量不引入新词，而是尽量用熟词，加上解释，当然，这和译者对英文的理解是有关的。例如“表象”，可能会译成“表现”，最终可能会是“现量”
3. 一些英国人都无法理解的词，如果中国文化有对等的词汇，可能会使用。例如：“统觉”，将译成“根本智”。

符号说明
1. 小括号“（）”
直接跟在后面的，都是原文自己的说明;
原文用逗号分开的从句，为了汉语的方便，可能会调位置，加括号，这种多为：“，（xxyy）, ”
原文还有一种双破折号“—xxyy—”，我将改为：“（-xxyy-）”;

2. 中括号“[]”
基本是原文所带的德文，基本从李本拷贝过来。
3. 大括号“{}”
为译者的注释、说明。

参考书目
英文版：Friedrich Max Müller：Critique of Pure Reason[1881]

中文版：李秋零：康德著作全集_第4卷_纯粹理性批判[第一版]

@上的逢高减磅 2016-06-10 23:20:04
纯粹理性批判已经是约定俗成的翻译了，改成鉴定能不能被接受？
-----------------------------
不好意思，我只考虑终于原文

4. 单引号“‘’”
英文从句多，所以有时候，特别复杂的情况，要全部按汉语习惯改写，很麻烦，意思也不是很清楚，所以用单引号，将从句或主要词汇引起来，便于阅读，起断句的作用。

@上的逢高减磅
-----------------------------
这个事情确实很纠结，所以我要尽量将原因讲清楚

如果我是对的，那么如果现在不改，将来后面的人，问起我来，我怎么说？
现在都是中国人关起门来，自己讨论，还好办特别的是，
如果，那天，那个老外指出这个问题，那恐怕就是国际笑话了

另外，现在整个康德学，乃至整个西方哲学界，已经陷入猜谜逗闷子的境地了，能讲清楚的，应该尽量讲清楚吧

DEDICATION
Sir,
To further, so far as in us lies, the growth of the sciences is to work in your
Excellency’s own interest, your own interest being intimately connected with them,
not only through the exalted position of a patron of science, but through the far more
intimate relation of a lover and enlightened judge. For that reason I avail myself of the
only means within my power of proving my gratitude for the gracious confidence
with which your Excellency honours me, as if I too could help toward your noble
work.
[Whoever delights in a speculative life finds with moderate wishes the approval of an
enlightened and kind judge a powerful incentive to studies the results of which are
great, but remote, and therefore entirely ignored by vulgar eyes.]
To you, as such a judge, and to your kind attention I now submit this book, placing all
other concerns of my literary future under your special protection, and remaining with
profound respect1
Your Excellency’S Most Obedient Servant,
IMMANUEL KANT.
Königsberg,March 29, 1781.

献词
{献给王家国务大臣 策德利茨男爵阁下}

先生！

促进科学的发展，既是我们共同的心愿，也是为阁下您自己的兴趣而工作；您的兴趣与科学密切相连，不仅是由于一个科学保护者的崇高地位，而且，还由于一个爱好者和明察秋毫的行家更亲密的多的关系。由此原因，对于阁下慷慨的信赖赐予我以荣耀，我也利用自己唯一的、力所能及手段，表示我的感激之情，就好像我真能为此目的做出什么贡献似得。
[对于喜欢思辨生活的人，不论他是谁，对于一个结果伟大而遥远、从而完全不为凡俗所识的研究，都会温和地希望，得到一位开明善良法官的强有力的鼓励。]
对于您，一位这样的法官，及您的关切，我呈献上这部著作，并将我的著述前程的其它所有事务，都置于您的特殊庇护之下。谨致深深的敬意。
阁下您最恭顺的仆人
伊曼努尔 康德
哥尼斯贝格
1781年3月29日

PREFACE1
Our reason (Vernunft) has this peculiar fate that, with reference to one class of its knowledge, it is always troubled with questions which cannot be ignored, because they spring from the very nature of reason, and which cannot be answered, because they transcend the powers of human reason.
Nor is human reason to be blamed for this. It begins with principles which, in the course of experience, it must follow, and which are sufficiently confirmed by experience. With these again, according to the necessities of its nature, it rises higher and higher to more remote conditions. But when it perceives that in this way its work remains for ever incomplete, because the questions never cease, it finds itself constrained to take refuge in principles which exceed every possible experimental application, and nevertheless seem so unobjectionable that even ordinary common sense agrees with them. Thus, however, reason becomes involved in darkness and contradictions, from which, no doubt, it may conclude that errors must be lurking somewhere, but without being able to discover them, because the principles which it follows transcend all the limits of experience and therefore withdraw themselves [xviii] from all experimental tests. It is the battle-field of these endless controversies which is called Metaphysic.
前言
我们的理性，有这么一个特殊的命运，这与它的知识中的一种有关，即它总是被不能忽视的问题所困扰，因为这些问题来自理性的本性，且无法回答，因为它们超越了人类理性的能力。人类理性不应为此而受责备。问题开始于：在经验的过程中，它必须遵循的一些原理，这些原理也是被经验充分肯定的。还是凭借这些原理，依据其本性的必需性，理性上升到越来越高的遥远的条件。但是，它感知到，通过这种方式，它的工作永远也不可能完成，因为问题永远都不会停止，它发现，它被限制在一定范围，只能求助于那些‘超越了每个可能实验性的应用’的原理，尽管如此，却显得如此无可怀疑，甚至就连普通的常识，也表示赞同。这样，理性就陷入了黑暗和矛盾中，毫无疑问，它可以得出结论说：错误肯定潜藏于某处，但却不能发现它们，因为，它所遵循的原理，既然超越了所有经验的限制，那么就让它们脱开了所有经验性的验证。这些长期以来、无休无止的争论的战场，就叫做“形而上学”。

There was a time when Metaphysic held a royal place among all the sciences, and, if the will were taken for the deed, the exceeding importance of her subject might well have secured to her that place of honour. At present it is the fashion to despise Metaphysic, and the poor matron, forlorn and forsaken, complains like Hecuba, Modo maxima rerum, tot generis natisque potens — nunc trahor exul, inops (Ovid, Metam. xiii. 508).
曾几何时，形而上学，在所有的科学中，拥有皇室般的地位，如果把意志当作事实，那么，由于其对象的卓越的重要性，足以保证她的荣誉地位。时下，蔑视形而上学是潮流，这位可怜的老妇，孤苦伶仃，惨遭抛弃，像赫卡柏一样抱怨道：Modo maxima rerum, tot generis natisque potens — nunc trahor exul, inops [不久前我还是万物之首，因子嗣众多而君临天下，而今却被放逐，一无所有。--奥维德：《变形记》]。

At first the rule of Metaphysic, under the dominion of the dogmatists, was despotic. But as the laws still bore the traces of an old barbarism, intestine wars and complete anarchy broke out, and the sceptics, a kind of nomads, despising all settled culture of the land, broke up from time to time all civil society. Fortunately their number was small, and they could not prevent the old settlers from returning to cultivate the ground afresh, though without any fixed plan or agreement. Not long ago one might have thought, indeed, that all these quarrels were to have been settled and the legitimacy of her claims decided once for all through a certain physiology of the human understanding, the work of the celebrated Locke. But, though the descent of that royal pretender, traced back as it had been to the lowest mob of common experience, ought to have rendered her claims very suspicious, yet, as that genealogy turned out to be in reality a false invention, the old queen (Metaphysic) continued to maintain her claims, everything fell back into the old rotten dogmatism, and the contempt from which metaphysical science was to have been rescued, remained the same as ever. At present, after everything has been tried, so [xix] they say, and tried in vain, there reign in philosophy weariness and complete indifferentism, the mother of chaos and night in all sciences but, at the same time, the spring or, at least, the prelude of their near reform and of a new light, after an ill-applied study has rendered them dark, confused, and useless.
最初，形而上学的统治，处于独断论者的管辖下，是专制的。但是，由于立法仍带有古代野蛮的痕迹，导致了内战和无政府的爆发，怀疑论者，一种流浪族，蔑视大地上所有确定的文明，对所有的公民社会，进行一次又一次地破坏。所幸的是，他们的人数并不多，不能阻止老的定居者，返回来重建家园，虽然没有任何固定的计划或协议。不久以前，人们或许还会想，而且也确实如此，即通过人类理解力的某种生理学，即著名的洛克的工作，所有这些争论，已被解决，其要求的合法性，也一次性永远地确定了。但是，虽然那个皇室觊觎者的血统，追踪下去，好像来自普通经验这一最底层的贱民，已经使其被怀疑所环绕了，而那个族谱，由于最终却证明是捏造的，所以老女王（形而上学）仍继续维持着她的要求，由此，一切又都跌回了老朽的独断主义，而我们曾经想拯救的、对形而上学的蔑视，也依然如故。现在，在所有办法都试过并徒劳无功之后，他们说，在哲学中占统治地位的，是疲倦和完全的冷淡，它们是所有科学的混乱和黑暗之母，但同时，在一个病态应用的研究，使得科学黑暗，混乱和无用后，毕竟还是漏出了一线变革的希望或曙光。

It is in vain to assume a kind of artificial indifferentism in respect to enquiries the object of which cannot be indifferent to human nature. Nay, those pretended indifferentists (however they may try to disguise themselves by changing scholastic terminology into popular language), if they think at all, fall back inevitably into those very metaphysical dogmas which they profess to despise. Nevertheless this indifferentism, showing itself in the very midst of the most flourishing state of all sciences, and affecting those very sciences the teachings of which, if they could be had, would be the last to be surrendered, is a phenomenon well worthy of our attention and consideration. It is clearly the result, not of the carelessness, but of the matured judgment1 of our age, which will no longer rest satisfied with the mere appearance of knowledge. [xx] It is, at the same time, a powerful appeal to reason to undertake anew the most difficult of its duties, namely, self-knowledge, and to institute a court of appeal which should protect the just rights of reason, but dismiss all groundless claims, and should do this not by means of irresponsible decrees, but according to the eternal and unalterable laws of reason. This court of appeal is no other than the Critique of Pure Reason.
I do not mean by this a criticism of books and systems, but of the faculty of reason in general, touching that whole class of knowledge which it may strive after, unassisted by experience. This must decide the question of the possibility or impossibility of metaphysic in general, and the determination of its sources, its extent, and its limits — and all this according to fixed principles.✪
有些对象，对人类来说，不可能是无所谓的，对于它们的探究，假装漠不关心，是徒劳的。不仅如此，那些假装的冷漠者（无论他们如何将学术术语，换成大众流行语，借以伪装自己），如果他们思考的话，那么，他们就会不可避免地跌回到那些他们宣称鄙视的形而上学的信条上去。尽管如此，我们知道，有些科学，一旦人们获得其真正知识，将最不会放弃它们；而这种冷漠主义，在所有科学的最昌盛的状态中，显示自己，并恰恰影响上述科学，则是一个完全值得我们关注和思考的现象。很显然，它不是粗枝大叶的结果，而是我们这个时代的成熟的判断力的结果，即，将不会满足于仅仅的表面知识。同时，对理性来说，重新承担起其职责中最困难的这项任务，是一个强有力的请求，该工作，即自我认识的工作，且要任命一个法庭，该法庭不仅应该保护理性的正当权利，而且应该解散所有毫无根据的要求，它做这件事，不是通过不负责任的法令强迫，而是依据理性永恒的和无法改变的规律裁夺。这个法庭，就只能是“纯粹理性的鉴定”。

{
外国人叫法庭，中国人叫大堂，道理是一样的。
过去大堂上，一般挂着一个匾，上书四个字:“明镜高悬”。

话说一日，老爷升堂问案，嫌犯百般抵赖，老爷拿起惊堂木，“啪”，的一拍，说：
“大胆刁民，知道老爷大堂上，挂的这四个字什么意思吗？”
“回老爷，小民不认识字”
“不认识字啊，哼，本老爷慈悲，告诉你个简版的，叫 鉴定 ！”
}

I do not mean by this a criticism of books and systems, but of the faculty of reason in general, touching that whole class of knowledge which it may strive after, unassisted by experience. This must decide the question of the possibility or impossibility of metaphysic in general, and the determination of its sources, its extent, and its limits — and all this according to fixed principles.
我所说的这个鉴定，并不是指对某些书或系统的鉴定，而是对一般理性能力的鉴定，它触及到整个知识种类，（理性在这些知识种类后面奋斗着），且不被经验所支持。这个鉴定，必须裁决一般形而上学的可能性或不可能性的问题，及其源泉、扩展和界限等的规定—所有这一切，都是依据固定的原理。

This, the only way that was left, I have followed, and I flatter myself that I have thus removed all those errors which have hitherto brought reason, whenever it was unassisted by experience, into conflict with itself. I have not evaded its questions by pleading the insufficiency of human reason, but I have classified them according to principles, and, after showing the point where reason begins to misunderstand itself, solved them satisfactorily. It is true that the answer of those questions is not such as a dogma-enamoured curiosity might wish for, for such curiosity could not have been satisfied except by juggling tricks in which I am no adept. But this was not the intention of the natural destiny of our reason, and it became the duty of philosophy to remove the deception which arose from a false interpretation, even though many a vaunted and cherished dream should vanish at the same time. In this work I have chiefly aimed at [xxi] completeness, and I venture to maintain that there ought not to be one single metaphysical problem that has not been solved here, or to the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied. In fact Pure Reason is so perfect a unity that, if its principle should prove insufficient to answer any one of the many questions started by its very nature, one might throw it away altogether, as insufficient to answer the other questions with perfect certainty.
这个鉴定，是唯一剩下的道路，我依据走过了，我自诩，通过这种方式，我已经消除了所有迄今为止、当没有经验支持的时候、将理性带到与自己的矛盾中的错误。我并没有借口人类理性的不充分性，而逃避它的这些问题，相反，我依据原理，将这些问题分类，并在指出理性在何处误解了自己之后，将这些问题满意地解决了。确实，对这些问题的回答，不像一个教条迷恋型的好奇心所希望的那样，因为这种好奇心，只有通过变戏法的方式才能使其满足，而这却不是我所擅长的。但是，这并不是我们理性的自然命运的意图，哲学的责任，变成了是将误解所引起的欺骗移除，尽管同时，很多被吹嘘的、和憧憬的美梦，应该也烟消云散了。本工作中，我的主要目标是完整性，我斗胆说，没有任何一个形而上学的问题，在这里没有得到解决，或者它的解决方案的钥匙，没有被提供。事实上，纯粹理性，是一个如此完整的统一体，以至于如果它的原理，对于任何一个起始于它的本性的问题，如果不足以回答的话，那么，人们就可以将它整个抛弃，就好像对于其它问题，它也同样不足以完全确定地回答一样。

[*footnote:We often hear complaints against the shallowness of thought in our own time, and
the decay of sound knowledge. But I do not see that sciences which rest on a solid
foundation, such as mathematics, physics, etc., deserve this reproach in the least. On
the contrary, they maintain their old reputation of solidity, and with regard to physics,
even surpass it. The same spirit would manifest itself in other branches of knowledge,
if only their principles had first been properly determined. Till that is done,
indifferentism and doubt, and ultimately severe criticism, are rather signs of honest
thought. Our age is, in every sense of the word, the age of criticism, and everything
must submit to it. Religion, on the strength of its sanctity, and law, on the strength of
its majesty, try to withdraw themselves from it; but by so doing they arouse just
suspicions, and cannot claim that sincere respect which reason pays to those only who
have been able to stand its free and open examination.]
[*脚注：我们总是听到，关于我们这个时代，思想肤浅、及可靠的知识缺乏的的抱怨。但是，我不认为，一些基于坚实基础的科学，如数学、物理学等，应受这种责备。相反，它们保持着它们固有的坚实的声誉，且物理学在这方面，甚至做的更好。在其它的知识分支中，也表现出同样的精神，只要它们的原理，在开始的时候，真正地规定好了。在做到这点之前，冷漠和怀疑，及最终的严格的鉴定，毋宁说是诚实思想的证明。就每个词的字面意义而言，我们的时代，是鉴定的时代，每件事情都需要提交给它。宗教，基于其神圣性的力量，法律，基于其权威的力量，试图免于鉴定；但是，这样做，只能让它们引起怀疑，不能得到真诚的尊敬，理性，只把这种尊敬，给予那些可以面对理性的自由和公开的检查的知识。]

While I am saying this I fancy I observe in the face of my readers an expression of indignation, mixed with contempt, at pretensions apparently so self-glorious and extravagant; and yet they are in reality far more moderate than those made by the writer of the commonest essay professing to prove the simple nature of the soul or the necessity of a first beginning of the world. For, while he pretends to extend human knowledge beyond the limits of all possible experience, I confess most humbly that this is entirely beyond my power. I mean only to treat of reason and its pure thinking, a knowledge of which is not very far to seek, considering that it is to be found within myself. Common logic gives an instance how all the simple acts of reason can be enumerated completely and systematically. Only between the common logic and my work there is this difference, that my question is, — what can we hope to achieve with reason, when all the material and assistance of experience is taken away?
So much with regard to the completeness in our laying hold of every single object, and the thoroughness in our laying hold of all objects, as the material of our critical enquiries — a completeness and thoroughness determined, not by a casual idea, but by the nature of our knowledge itself.
当我这样说的时候，可以想象，面对这种如此明显过分的大言不惭，在读者的脸上，肯定有不满和轻蔑；要知道，有些最普通的短文的作者，也宣称证明了灵魂的简单本质、或世界的最初开始的必然性，而我所讲的，与这些人的相比，事实上，要温和的多。因为，当这种作者，自称将人类的知识，扩展出了所有可能经验的范围时，我只能最谦卑地承认，这完全超越了我的能力。我的意思，是只与理性和它的纯粹思想打交道，这是一种并不需要去远处寻找的知识，考虑到它们将在我们自己这里被找到的话。普通的逻辑，提供了这样一个实例：即所有理性的简单的活动，如何才能完全地、和系统性地被列举出来。我的问题是：当所有的物质和经验性的支持都被去掉后，仅凭理性，我们究竟能有什么成就呢？普通的逻辑，已经有了成就，{而我还没有}，这是只存在于它和我的工作之间的一个区别。

对单个对象的完全掌握，和对全体对象的彻底掌握，这种大量的掌握，是我们鉴定查询的材料，所要求的—完整性和彻底性，由此被规定了，不是由于偶然的、随便的观念，而是由于我们知识本身的本质。

Besides this, certainty and clearness with regard to form are two essential demands that may very properly be addressed to an author who ventures on so slippery an undertaking.
除此之外，这是一个溜滑难搞的事业，对于一个敢于从事这种事业的作者，形式上的确定性和清晰性，是两个最重要的要求，是可以对作者正当地提出的。

First, with regard to certainty, I have pronounced judgment against myself by saying that in this kind of enquiries it is in no way permissible to propound mere opinions, and that everything looking like a hypothesis is counterband, that must not be offered for sale at however low a price, but must, as soon as it has been discovered, be confiscated. For every kind of knowledge which professes to be certain a priori, proclaims itself that it means to be taken for absolutely necessary. And this applies, therefore, still more to a definition of all pure knowledge a priori, which is to be the measure, and therefore also an example, of all apodictic philosophical certainty. Whether I have fulfilled what I have here undertaken to do, must be left to the judgment of the reader; for it only behoves the author to propound his arguments, and not to determine beforehand the effect which they ought to produce on his judges. But, in order to prevent any unnecessary weakening of those arguments, he may be allowed to point out himself certain passages which, though they refer to collateral objects only, might occasion some mistrust, and thus to counteract in time the influence which the least hesitation of the reader in respect to these minor points might exercise with regard to the principal object.
第一，关于确定性，我宣布了我自己的判断，通过说，在这类查询中，只提出意见，是决不允许的，因为如果这样的话，那么每件事看上去，都像是一个假说，则这种事情，和走私的水货没什么区别，不论价格多低，都不应允许销售，而是一经发现，就应该马上充公{给自己定了纪律：只给结论，不给理由，是不行的}。因为，每种妄称拥有某种先天性质的知识，等于是宣称，它所妄称的，应当被当做是绝对必然的。因此，这种妄称，更可应用于‘所有纯粹先天知识’的定义，而这种定义，将是所有绝对肯定的哲学确定性的度量标准，从而，甚至也可能是该确定性的一个例子。我在这里所承担的工作，是否全做完了，必须留给读者去判断；因为，作者的任务，只是提出他的论据，而不是预先规定，他的论据，对他的读者中可能产生的影响。但是，为了防止任何对这些论据的不必要的消弱，应允许他自己指出，虽然有些段落只是指向次要的对象，但它们可能会引起一些猜疑，当读到这些段落时，读者可能会有些疑惑，而这种疑惑，可能会对主要对象的理解，产生影响，指明此点，将会及时地抵消这种影响。

I know of no enquiries which are more important for determining that faculty which we call understanding (Verstand), and for fixing its rules and its limits, than those in the Second Chapter of my Transcendental Analytic, under the title of ‘Deduction of the Pure Concepts [xxiii] of the Understanding.’ They have given me the greatest but, I hope, not altogether useless trouble. This enquiry, which rests on a deep foundation, has two sides. The one refers to the objects of the pure understanding, and is intended to show and explain the objective value of its concepts a priori. It is, therefore, of essential importance for my purposes. The other is intended to enquire into the pure understanding itself, its possibility, and the powers of knowledge on which it rests, therefore its subjective character; a subject which, though important for my principal object, yet forms no essential part of it, because my principal problem is and remains, What and how much may understanding (Verstand) and reason (Vernunft) know without all experience? and not, How is the faculty of thought possible? The latter would be an enquiry into a cause of a given effect; it would, therefore, be of the nature of an hypothesis (though, as I shall show elsewhere, this is not quite so); and it might seem as if I had here allowed myself to propound a mere opinion, leaving the reader free to hold another opinion also. I therefore warn the reader, in case my subjective deduction should not produce that complete conviction which I expect, that the objective deduction, in which I am here chiefly concerned, must still retain its full strength. For this, what has been said on pp. 82, 83 (92, 93) may possibly by itself be sufficient.
对于我们称为理解力的能力，对它本身的规定、及对它的规则的固定、和界限的划分，我在“先验分析论”的第二章:“理解力的纯粹概念的推导”中，有个相关的考察，没有比这个考察更重要的了。它们是我工作中最麻烦的一部分，希望不是无用的。这个考察，有相当深的基础，包括两个方面。一方面，指向纯粹理解力的对象，意图是显示和解释其先天概念的客观价值。因此，对于我的目的来说，它们具有本质上的重要性。另一方面，是打算考察纯粹理解力本身、它的可能性、它所依赖的种种知识的力量，从而是考察它的主观特点；这个主观对象，虽然对我的主要对象是重要的，但本质上，并不是它们的构成成分，因为我的主要问题一直是：“没有所有经验的话，理解力和理性，究竟能知道些什么、能知道多少？”而不是“思想这一能力，是如何可能的？”既然后者，应是对一个给定结果的原因的考察；从而，它应该是有假说的本性（虽然，在其它地方，我将说明，并不完全如此）；似乎，这里我允许自己，仅仅提出一个意见，因此，也就允许读者，可以持有其它意见。鉴于这一点，我要警告读者，就算我的主观推导，不能产生我所期待的、完整的坚信，那么，我这里所主要关注的客观推导，也仍会维持其全部的力量。要达到这个目的，单是第xx页所说的，可能就足够了。

Secondly, as to clearness, the reader has a right to demand not only what may be called logical or discursive clearness, which is based on concepts, but also what may be called æsthetic or intuitive clearness produced by intuitions, i.e. by examples and concrete illustrations. With regard to the former I have made ample provision. That [xxiv] arose from the very nature of my purpose, but it became at the same time the reason why I could not fully satisfy the latter, if not absolute, yet very just claim. Nearly through the whole of my work I have felt doubtful what to do. Examples and illustrations seemed always to be necessary, and therefore found their way into the first sketch of my work. But I soon perceived the magnitude of my task and the number of objects I should have to treat; and, when I saw that even in their driest scholastic form they would considerably swell my book, I did not consider it expedient to extend it still further through examples and illustrations required for popular purposes only. This work can never satisfy the popular taste, and the few who know, do not require that help which, though it is always welcome, yet might here have defeated its very purpose. The Abbé Terrasson1 writes indeed that, if we measured the greatness of a book, not by the number of its pages, but by the time we require for mastering it, many a book might be said to be much shorter, if it were not so short. But, on the other hand, if we ask how a complicated, yet in principle coherent whole of speculative thought can best be rendered intelligible, we might be equally justified in saying that many a book would have been more intelligible, if it had not tried to be so very intelligible. For the helps to clearness, though they may be missed2 with regard to details, often distract with regard to the whole. The reader does not arrive quickly enough at a survey of the whole, because the bright colours [xxv] of illustrations hide and distort the articulation and concatenation of the whole system, which, after all, if we want to judge of its unity and sufficiency, are more important than anything else.
第二，关于清晰性，读者不仅有权利要求，逻辑上的、或推论上的清晰性，这是基于概念的；而且有权利要求，美学的、或直观的清晰性，这是由观照产生的，也就是，由例子和具体的说明产生的。关于前者，我做了充足的准备。这涉及我的计划的本质，但同时，也变成了为什么我不能满足后者的原因，后者的要求，尽管不是绝对的，但毕竟也是很公正的。几乎在我的整个工作的进展中，对于究竟该怎么做，我一直都犹豫不决。例子和说明，似乎总是必要的，从而在最初的草稿中，是有其位置的。但是，很快我就发现，我将要处理的任务之庞大和对象之繁多；当我看到，这些东西，即使用最枯燥的、经院哲学的形式，也足以使本书相当膨胀了，仅在大众化方面有必要的例子和说明，只会是本书更臃肿，故此法不可取。这个工作，永远不可能满足大众的口味，而对于少数的行家来说，虽然帮助总是受欢迎的，但如果帮助会干扰主旨的话，没有也是可以的。修道院长特拉松说到：如果我们不是按照页数，而是通过我们掌握它所需要的时间，来判断一本书是否伟大的话，那么，关于很多书，就可以这样说：如果它以前不是这么短的话，那么现在，则可以说是非常的短了。但是，另一方面，如果，对于一个复杂的、但从原理上讲，联合在一起的思辨思想，我们要问，如何才能使它变的最好理解，我们可以同样公平地说：很多书，如果它不是那么努力，以打算变得很清晰的话，则实际可能会更清晰些。因为，清晰性的帮助，虽然在细节方面，可能会让人流连忘返，但从全体的角度来说，却可能会偏离主旨。通常，读者不可能很快地对全部有一个纵览，因为全部系统的关节和骨架，可能被五颜六色的说明，给遮住并扭曲了，而如果我们想判断它的统一性和充分性的话，则这些关节和骨架，毕竟是比任何东西都重要的。

Surely it should be an attraction to the reader if he is asked to join his own efforts with those of the author in order to carry out a great and important work, according to the plan here proposed, in a complete and lasting manner. Metaphysic, according to the definitions here given, is the only one of all sciences which, through a small but united effort, may count on such completeness in a short time, so that nothing will remain for posterity but to arrange everything according to its own views for didactic purposes, without being able to add anything to the subject itself. For it is in reality nothing but an inventory of all our possessions acquired through Pure Reason, systematically arranged. Nothing can escape us, because whatever reason produces entirely out of itself, cannot hide itself, but is brought to light by reason itself, so soon as the common principle has been discovered. This absolute completeness is rendered not only possible, but necessary, through the perfect unity of this kind of knowledge, all derived from pure concepts, without any influence from experience, or from special intuitions leading to a definite kind of experience, that might serve to enlarge and increase it. Tecum habita et noris quam sit tibi curta supellex (Persius, Sat. iv. 52).
如果被问到，是否愿意，依据这里所建议的计划，以一种完整和持续的方式，与这些作者们一道，做这项伟大而重要的工作，那么，对读者来说，肯定是有吸引力的。形而上学，依据这里所给的定义，是所有科学中，唯一的一门通过小但却是联合起来的努力，可以在短时间内，期待这样的完整性的科学，这样，留给后人的，就没有什么工作了，后人所能做的，只有为了教学的目的，依据其自己的观点，在风格上调整一下罢了，而不能再对主题本身，增加任何东西了。因为，事实上，这无非是通过纯粹理性，对我们的所有财产，列出了一个系统性的清单罢了。在这里，我们明镜高悬，无微不鉴，因为，无论理性从其自身产生了什么东西，都不可能隐藏自己，只要共同的原理被发现了，这些东西，都会被理性自己，带到阳光之下。这类知识，从纯粹概念导出，没有任何来自经验的影响、或‘可以导致某种确定经验’的特殊观照的影响，可以用来扩展和增加它，通过这类知识的完美的统一性，使得这个绝对的完整性，不仅是可能的，而且是必然的。Tecum habita et noris quam sit tibi curta supellex [自己住吧，你将知道你的陈设是多么的简单。--佩尔修]

Such a system of pure (speculative) reason I hope myself to produce under the title of ‘Metaphysic of Nature.’ It will not be half so large, yet infinitely richer than this Critique of Pure Reason, which has, first of all, to discover its source, nay, the conditions of its possibility, [xxvi] in fact, to clear and level a soil quite overgrown with weeds. Here I expect from my readers the patience and impartiality of a judge, there the goodwill and aid of a fellow-worker. For however completely all the principles of the system have been propounded in my Critique, the completeness of the whole system requires also that no derivative concepts should be omitted, such as cannot be found out by an estimate a priori, but have to be discovered step by step. There the synthesis of concepts has been exhausted, here it will be requisite to do the same for their analysis, a task which is easy and an amusement rather than a labour.
这样一个纯粹（思辨）理性的系统，我自己希望，是在“自然的形而上学”这个标题下产生。与这个“纯粹理性鉴定”相比，篇幅尚不及其一半，但内容却要丰富的多，首先，它应该发现其源泉，不仅如此，还有其可能性的条件，事实上，对于一个荒草丛生的地方，首先要除草和肥土。这里，我希望我的读者们，有着法官般的耐心和公正，而那里，所期待的，则是助手般的善意和支持。因为，无论在我的“鉴定”中，所提出的系统的原理，是多么的完整，全部系统的完整性，还是会要求，没有任何导出的概念，被忽略了，例如那些不能先天估计出来、而只能是一步步地去发现的概念。那里，对概念的综合，已被穷尽了，那么这里，对概念的分析，也必须穷尽，就是必需的了，这是一个容易的任务，与其说是劳动，不如说是娱乐。