aim at giving a philosophical colouring to their contemptuous
dislike of all inquiries of this kind； I think it necessary to present
to my readers this mode of thought in its true light。
Scepticism not a Permanent State for Human Reason。
The consciousness of ignorance… unless this ignorance is
recognized to be absolutely necessary ought； instead of forming 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 must 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 consequently absolves from the duty of all further
investigation； is a fact which cannot be made out upon empirical
grounds… from observation… but upon critical grounds alone； that is；
by a thoroughgoing investigation into the primary sources of
cognition。 It follows that the determination of the bounds of reason
can be made only on a priori grounds； while the empirical limitation
of reason； which is merely an indeterminate cognition of an
ignorance that can never be pletely removed； can take place only
a posteriori。 In other words； our empirical knowledge is limited by
that which yet remains for us to know。 The former cognition of our
ignorance； which is possible only on a rational basis； is a science；
the latter is merely a perception； and we cannot say how far the
inferences drawn from it may extend。 If I regard the earth； as it
really appears to my senses； as a flat surface； I am ignorant how
far this surface extends。 But experience teaches me that； how far
soever I go； I always see before me a space in which I can proceed
farther； and thus I know the limits… merely visual… of my actual
knowledge of the earth； although I am ignorant of the limits of the
earth itself。 But if I have got so far as to know that the earth is
a sphere； and that its surface is spherical； I can cognize a priori
and determine upon principles； from my knowledge of a small part of
this surface… say to the extent of a degree… the diameter and
circumference of the earth； and although I am ignorant of the
objects which this surface contains； I have a perfect knowledge 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 this 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
monly based upon clear insight； that is； upon a priori cognition。
Hence he concluded that this law does not derive its authority from
its universality and necessity； but merely from its general
applicability in the course of experience； and a kind of subjective
necessity thence arising； which he termed habit。 From the inability of
reason to establish this principle as a 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 examination；
and； if necessary； to disapproval； may be termed the censura of
reason。 This censura must inevitably lead us to doubts regarding all
transcendent employment of principles。 But this is 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； is that of
dogmatism。 The second； which we have just mentioned； is that of
scepticism； and it gives evidence that our judgement has been improved
by experience。 But a third step is necessary… indicative of the
maturity and manhood of the judgement； which now lays a firm
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 dogmatical
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 plete certitude； whether this relates to the
cognition of objects themselves； or to the limits which bound all
our cognition。
Reason is not to be considered as an indefinitely extended plane； of
the bounds of which we have only a general knowledge； it ought
rather to be pared to a sphere； the radius of which may be found
from the curvature of its surface… that is； the nature of a priori
synthetical propositions… and； consequently； its circumference and
extent。 Beyond the sphere of experience there are no objects which
it can cognize； nay； even questions regarding such supposititious
objects relate only to the subjective principles of a plete
determination of the relations which exist between the
understanding…conceptions which lie within this sphere。
We are actually in possession of a priori synthetical cognitions； as
is proved by the existence of the principles of the understanding；
which anticipate experience。 If any one cannot prehend 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：
If 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 propositions regarding the latter are mere random
assertions。 In this view； the doubt respecting all dogmatical
philosophy； which proceeds without the guidance of criticism； is
well grounded； but we cannot therefore deny to reason the ability to
construct a sound philosophy； when the way has been prepared by a
thorough critical investigation。 All the conceptions produced； and all
the questions raised； by pure reason； do not lie in the sphere of
experience； but in that of reason 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 faculties； 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 based； 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 information in regard to the bounds of
our knowledge。 All unsuccessful do