Before Kant, John Locke and Hume thought pure reason can only know analytic ideas--things that are contained in the definitions. [To the empiricists the only real knowledge is what can be verified by observation. ] Kant expanded the areas of what can be known.  He said reason can know synthetic a priori-[i.e. universals, like causality]-but only within the conditions of possible experience. Hegel and Jacob Fries expanded that further. To Hegel, pure reason can even know everything. There is no limit. Even God and the soul and morality. To Fries these are areas where knowledge is possible, but not by reason, rather by a sort of knowledge that is not reason nor based on sense perception.

Hegel has lots of critics, but I think that the thesis of Cunningham  shows that he did not disparage the individual.

[I think that both the Friesian School of Kelley Ross and Hegel have tremendous points, but I can not tell if the truth is only in one camp or the other.

Rav Nahman in the LeM [I think in the left out portions that were later added back in] says when God created the world the midot like wisdom would expand indefinitely. Then God set a limit to them. 

Rav Nahman wrote this specifically about wisdom [Reason]. This goes along with Jacob Fries that we have knowledge beyond conditions of possible experience [i.e. Faith.] but this knowledge is not by reason.