we cannot know。 On the other hand； in our investigations of the
phenomena of nature； much must remain uncertain； and many questions
continue insoluble； because what we know of nature is far from being
sufficient to explain all the phenomena that are presented to our
observation。 Now the question is： 〃Whether there is in
transcendental philosophy any question； relating to an object
presented to pure reason； which is unanswerable by this reason； and
whether we must regard the subject of the question as quite uncertain；
so far as our knowledge extends； and must give it a place among
those subjects； of which we have just so much conception as is
sufficient to enable us to raise a question… faculty or materials
failing us； however； when we attempt an answer。 the world
Now I maintain that； among all speculative cognition； the
peculiarity of transcendental philosophy is that there is no question；
relating to an object presented to pure reason； which is insoluble
by this reason； and that the profession of unavoidable ignorance…
the problem being alleged to be beyond the reach of our faculties…
cannot free us from the obligation to present a plete and
satisfactory answer。 For the very conception which enables us to raise
the question must give us the power of answering it； inasmuch as the
object； as in the case of right and wrong； is not to be discovered out
of the conception。
But； in transcendental philosophy； it is only the cosmological
questions to which we can demand a satisfactory answer in relation
to the constitution of their object； and the philosopher is not
permitted to avail himself of the pretext of necessary ignorance and
impenetrable obscurity。 These questions relate solely to the
cosmological ideas。 For the object must be given in experience； and
the question relates to the adequateness of the object to an idea。
If the object is transcendental and therefore itself unknown； if the
question； for example； is whether the object… the something； the
phenomenon of which （internal… in ourselves） is thought… that is to
say； the soul； is in itself a simple being； or whether there is a
cause of all things； which is absolutely necessary… in such cases we
are seeking for our idea an object； of which we may confess that it is
unknown to us； though we must not on that account assert that it is
impossible。* The cosmological ideas alone posses the peculiarity
that we can presuppose the object of them and the empirical
synthesis requisite for the conception of that object to be given； and
the question； which arises from these ideas； relates merely to the
progress of this synthesis； in so far as it must contain absolute
totality… which； however； is not empirical； as it cannot be given in
any experience。 Now； as the question here is solely in regard to a
thing as the object of a possible experience and not as a thing in
itself； the answer to the transcendental cosmological question need
not be sought out of the idea； for the question does not regard an
object in itself。 The question in relation to a possible experience is
not； 〃What can be given in an experience in concreto〃 but 〃what is
contained in the idea； to which the empirical synthesis must
approximate。〃 The question must therefore be capable of solution
from the idea alone。 For the idea is a creation of reason itself；
which therefore cannot disclaim the obligation to answer or refer us
to the unknown object。
*The question； 〃What is the constitution of a transcendental
object？〃 is unanswerable… we are unable to say what it is； but we
can perceive that the question itself is nothing； because it does
not relate to any object that can be presented to us。 For this reason；
we must consider all the questions raised in transcendental psychology
as answerable and as really answered； for they relate to the
transcendental subject of all internal phenomena； which is not
itself phenomenon and consequently not given as an object； in which；
moreover； none of the categories… and it is to them that the
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