But right at the outset here there is an ambiguity, which can occasion great misunderstanding: Since the understanding, when it calls an object in a relation mere phenomenon, simultaneously makes for itself, beyond this relation, another representation of an object in itself and hence also represents itself as being able to make concepts of such an object, and since the understanding offers nothing other than the cate gories through which the object in this lattt:: sense must at least be able to be thought, it is thereby misled into taking the entirely .undeter mined concept of a being of understanding, as a somethiug.j,n