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 which would be more easily
exposed in its application and consequences than in the mere
representation of its content。 This is the great utility of the
sceptical mode of treating the questions addressed by pure reason to
itself。 By this method we easily rid ourselves of the confusions of
dogmatism； and establish in its place a temperate criticism； which； as
a genuine cathartic； will successfully remove the presumptuous notions
of philosophy and their consequence… the vain pretension to
universal science。
If； then； I could understand the nature of a cosmological idea and
perceive； before I entered on the discussion of the subject at all；
that； whatever side of the question regarding the unconditioned of the
regressive synthesis of phenomena it favoured… it must either be too
great or too small for every conception of the understanding… I
would be able to prehend how the idea； which relates to an object
of experience… an experience which must be adequate to and in
accordance with a possible conception of the understanding… must be
pletely void and without significance； inasmuch as its object is
inadequate； consider it as we may。 And this is actually the case
with all cosmological conceptions； which； for the reason above
mentioned； involve reason； so long as it remains attached to them；
in an unavoidable antinomy。 For suppose：
First； that the world has no beginning… in this case it is too large
for our conception； for this conception； which consists in a
successive regress； cannot overtake the whole eternity that has
elapsed。 Grant that it has a beginning； it is then too small for the
conception of the understanding。 For； as a beginning presupposes a
time preceding； it cannot be unconditioned； and the law of the
empirical employment of the understanding imposes the necessity of
looking for a higher condition of time； and the world is； therefore；
evidently too small for this law。
The same is the case with the double answer to the question
regarding the extent； in space； of the world。 For； if it is infinite
and unlimited； it must be too large for every possible empirical
conception。 If it is finite and limited； we have a right to ask： 〃What
determines these limits？〃 Void space is not a self…subsistent
correlate of things； and cannot be a final condition… and still less
an empirical condition； forming a part of a possible experience。 For
how can we have any experience or perception of an absolute void？
But the absolute totality of the empirical synthesis requires that the
unconditioned be an empirical conception。 Consequently； a finite world
is too small for our conception。
Secondly； if every phenomenon （matter） in space consists of an
infinite number of parts； the regress of the division is always too
great for our conception； and if the division of space must cease with
some member of the division （the simple）； it is too small for the idea
of the unconditioned。 For the member at which we have discontinued our
division still admits a regress to many more parts contained in the
object。
Thirdly； suppose that every event in the world happens in accordance
with the laws of nature； the causality of a cause must itself be an
event and necessitates a regress to a still higher cause； and
consequently the unceasing prolongation of the series of conditions
a parte priori。 Operative nature is therefore too large for every
conception we can form in the synthesis of cosmical events。
If we admit the existence of spontaneously produced events； that is；
of free agency； we are driven； in our search for sufficient reasons；
on an unavoidable law of nature and are pelled to appeal to the
empirical law of causality； and we find that any such totality of
connection in our synthesis is too small for our necessary empirical
conception。
Fourthly； if we assume the existence of an absolutely necessary
being… whether it be the world or something in the world； or the cause
of the world… we must place it in a time at an infinite distance
from any given moment； for；