question is properly directed… find any conditions of its application。
Here； therefore； is a case where no answer is the only proper
answer。 For a question regarding the constitution of a something which
cannot be cogitated by any determined predicate； being pletely
beyond the sphere of objects and experience； is perfectly null and
void。
It is not so extraordinary； as it at first sight appears； that a
science should demand and expect satisfactory answers to all the
questions that may arise within its own sphere （questiones
domesticae）； although； up to a certain time； these answers may not
have been discovered。 There are； in addition to transcendental
philosophy； only two pure sciences of reason； the one with a
speculative； the other with a practical content… pure mathematics
and pure ethics。 Has any one ever heard it alleged that； from our
plete and necessary ignorance of the conditions； it is uncertain
what exact relation the diameter of a circle bears to the circle in
rational or irrational numbers？ By the former the sum cannot be
given exactly； by the latter only approximately； and therefore we
decide that the impossibility of a solution of the question is
evident。 Lambert presented us with a demonstration of this。 In the
general principles of morals there can be nothing uncertain； for the
propositions are either utterly without meaning； or must originate
solely in our rational conceptions。 On the other hand； there must be
in physical science an infinite number of conjectures； which can never
bee certainties； because the phenomena of nature are not given as
objects dependent on our conceptions。 The key to the solution of
such questions cannot； therefore； be found in our conceptions； or in
pure thought； but must lie without us and for that reason is in many
cases not to be discovered； and consequently a satisfactory
explanation cannot be expected。 The questions of transcendental
analytic； which relate to the deduction of our pure cognition； are not
to be regarded as of the same kind as those mentioned above； for we
are not at present treating of the certainty of judgements in relation
to the origin of our conceptions； but only of that certainty in
relation to objects。
We cannot； therefore； escape the responsibility of at least a
critical solution of the questions of reason； by plaints of the
limited nature of our faculties； and the seemingly humble confession
that it is beyond the power of our reason to decide； whether the world
has existed from all eternity or had a beginning… whether it is
infinitely extended； or enclosed within certain limits… whether
anything in the world is simple； or whether everything must be capable
of infinite divisibility… whether freedom can originate phenomena；
or whether everything is absolutely dependent on the laws and order of
nature… and； finally； whether there exists a being that is
pletely unconditioned and necessary； or whether the existence of
everything is conditioned and consequently dependent on something
external to itself； and therefore in its own nature contingent。 For
all these questions relate to an object； which can be given nowhere
else than in thought。 This object is the absolutely unconditioned
totality of the synthesis of phenomena。 If the conceptions in our
minds do not assist us to some certain result in regard to these
problems； we must not defend ourselves on the plea that the object
itself remains hidden from and unknown to us。 For no such thing or
object can be given… it is not to be found out of the idea in our
minds。 We must seek the cause of our failure in our idea itself； which
is an insoluble problem and in regard to which we obstinately assume
that there exists a real object corresponding and adequate to it。 A
clear explanation of the dialectic which lies in our conception；
will very soon enable us to e to a satisfactory decision in
regard to such a question。
The pretext that we are unable to arrive at certainty in regard to
these problems may be met with this question； which requires at
least a plain answer： 〃From what source do the ideas originate； the
solution of which involves you in such difficulties？ Are you seeking
for an explanation of certain phenomena； and do you expect these ideas
to give you the principles or the rules of this explanation？〃 Let it
be granted； that all nature was laid open before you； that nothing was
hid from your senses and your consciousness。 Still； you could not
cognize in concreto the object of your ideas in any experience。 For
what is demanded is not only this full and plete intuition； but
also a plete synthesis and the consciousness of its absolute
totality； and this is not possible by means of any empirical
cognition。 It follows that your question… your idea… is by no means
necessary for the explanation of any phenomenon； and the idea cannot
have been in any sense given by the object itself。 For such an
object can never be presented to us； because it cannot be given by any
possible experience。 Whatever perceptions you may attain to； you are
still surrounded by conditions… in space； or in time… and you cannot
discover anything unconditioned； nor can you decide whether this
unconditioned is to be placed in an absolute beginning of the
synthesis； or in an absolute totality of the series without beginning。
A whole； in the empirical signification of the term； is always
merely parative。 The absolute whole of quantity （the universe）；
of division； of derivation； of the condition of existence； with the
question… whether it is to be produced by finite or infinite
synthesis； no possible experience can instruct us concerning。 You will
not； for example； be able to explain the phenomena of a body in the
least degree better； whether you believe it to consist of simple； or
of posite parts； for a simple phenomenon… and just as little an
infinite series of position… can never be presented to your
perception。 Phenomena require and admit of explanation； only in so far
as the conditions of that explanation are given in perception； but the
sum total of that which is given in phenomena； considered as an
absolute whole； is itself a perception… and we cannot therefore seek
for explanations of this whole beyond itself； in other perceptions。
The explanation of this whole is the proper object of the
transcendental problems of pure reason。
Although； therefore； the solution of these problems is
unattainable through experience； we must not permit ourselves to say
that it is uncertain how the object of our inquiries is constituted。
For the object is in our own mind and cannot be discovered in
experience； and we have only to take care that our thoughts are
consistent with each other； and to avoid falling into the amphiboly of
regarding our idea as a representation of an object empirically given；
and therefore to be cognized according to the laws of experience。 A
dogmatical solution is therefore not only unsatisfactory but
impossible。 The critical solution； which may be a perfectly certain
one； does not consider the question objectively； but proceeds by
inquiring into the basis of the cognition upon which the question
rests。
SECTION V。 Sceptical Exposition of the Cosmological Problems
presented in the four Transcendental Ideas。
We should be quite willing to desist from the demand of a dogmatical
answer to our questions； if we understood beforehand that； be the
answer what it may； it would only serve to increase our ignorance；
to throw us from one inprehensibility into another； from one
obscurity into another still greater； and perhaps lead us into
irreconcilable contradictions。 If a dogmatical affirmative or negative
answer is demanded； is it at all prudent to set aside the probable
grounds of a solution which lie before us and to take into
consideration what advantage we shall gain； if the answer is to favour
the one side or the other？ If it happens that in both cases the answer
is mere nonsense； we have in this an irresistible summons to institute
a critical investigation of the question； for the purpose of
discovering whether it is based on a groundless presupposition and
relates to an idea； the falsity of whic