estimation follows sense perception. You have stated that this estimation is sound and corresponds to reality, just as sense perception does. If you challenge it, you challenge sense perception; and if you make it conflict with reason, that is tantamount to making sense perception conflict with reason.

If, however, by estimation you mean that which makes the universal judgment that affirming the existence of a being neither inside the world nor outside it is impossible, and similar universal propositions which you claim conflict with reason, then this statement is false on two grounds:

First: These are unrestricted universal propositions, whereas you have stated that estimation’s conceptions are particular. These therefore cannot be estimative propositions.

Second: It may be said that these universal propositions are like all other universal propositions whose starting points derive from sense perception, such as the judgments that blackness and whiteness are contraries, that motion and rest are contradictories, that a single body cannot be in two places, and the like.

Indeed, they are on a par with the judgment that a being either subsists in itself or subsists in another; that it is either eternal or has come into being; that it is either necessary in itself or possible in itself; and similar judgments.

Challenging these universal propositions is therefore like challenging those. If these may be challenged because their starting points derive from sense perception, then those may also be challenged; otherwise, they may not. For sense perception and what follows it—which they call estimation and imagination—apprehend only particular, individual things; the mind then makes a universal judgment. Thus, if those universal propositions may be false because their starting point is this estimation, which is sound in its original form