Given below are two statements: Statement I: Human reason has this peculiar fate that it reaches at a stage when it can neither answer certain questions nor can it ignore such questions. Statement II: Human reason, by its own nature, is not competent to resolve certain questions concerning the ultimate reality. In light of the above statements, choose the most appropriate answer from the options given below Correct Answer Both Statement I and Statement II are correct The reason is man's particular and characteristic feature. There is no need for praxeology to raise the question of whether the reason is a suitable tool for the cognition of ultimate and absolute truth. It deals with reason only as far as it enables man to act. Statement I: Human reason has this peculiar fate that it reaches at a stage when it can neither answer certain questions nor can it ignore such questions. Explanation: Kant analyzed metaphysical questions by solving the problem of scientific knowledge and identifying the sources of different types of knowledge (mathematics, theoretical science, and metaphysics). This problem could not be solved without imposing limitations on possible questions. Otherwise, formulating metaphysical questions would turn into an endless process. According to Kant, obtaining true objective knowledge is possible only through imposing limitations on reason or a conscious restriction of cognition. This thought is expressed in Kant’s famous phrase, ‘I had to deny knowledge to make room for faith’ (Kant 1998). Kant deemed it necessary, to begin with imposing limitations on admissible questions. The very first phrase of his preface to the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason revealed Immanuel Kant's attitude to the problem. Kant wrote, ‘Human reason has the peculiar fate in one species of its cognitions that it is burdened with questions which it cannot dismiss, since they are given to it as problems by the nature of reason itself, but which it also cannot answer, since they transcend every capacity of human reason’ (Kant 1998). These questions never end. Nor does the process of cognition. Therefore, the principles have a function of limiting possible questions of the reason. Kant was not evading questions of human reason. However, the principles that he introduced had to deliver reason from traditionally expected answers and limit ‘dogmatically enthusiastic lust for knowledge’, which could only be satisfied ‘through magical powers’. Thus, the statement I is correct. Statement II: Human reason, by its own nature, is not competent to resolve certain questions concerning the ultimate reality. Explanation: We cannot encounter the spiritual using material science. The things that are of God are far beyond the capabilities of our finite mind to comprehend. The divine can only be known through the nous, that place in the heart that is our true center. It, unlike the brain, is capable of knowing that is beyond human comprehension, coming as it does from the noetic knowledge of the heart. When we try to apply words to the noetic form, we fail, since God is outside the realm of human intellectual understanding. There is the seen and there is the unseen, the material and the immaterial. That which is material can be scientifically examined and experienced, whereas the immaterial can only be seen and experienced spiritually. These are two worlds that are only seemingly at odds with one another. If we attempt to examine that which is of a spiritual nature using science that is by its very nature meant to explore the material realm, we will fail. Thus, human reason, by its own nature, is not competent to resolve certain questions concerning the ultimate reality. Statement II is correct. ∴ Option 1 is the correct answer.