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 complete 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 become 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 complaints 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 ******, or whether everything must be capable of infinite divisibility- whether ******* 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 completely 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.Aclear explanation of the dialectic which lies in our conception, will very soon enable us to come 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 complete intuition, but also a complete 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 comparative.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 ******, or of composite parts; for a ****** phenomenon- and just as little an infinite series of composition- 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.
