,*APT] #h 
,H[ ,A ,PRIORI ,KN[L$GE IS ,POSSIBLE 

#aiabaiab 

,PEOPLE 3 

,AU?OR 3 ,B]TR& ,RUSSELL 

,TEXT 3 

,*,A,P,T,] ,V,I,I,I 

,H,[ ,A ,P,R,I,O,R,I ,K,N,[,L,$,G,E ,I,S ,P,O,S,S,I,B,L,E  

,I,M,M,A,N,U,E,L ,K,A,N,T IS G5]ALLY REG>D$ AS ! GREATE/ ( ! MOD]N 
PHILOSOPH]S4 ,?\< HE LIV$ ?R\< ! ,SEV5 ,YE>S ,W> & ! 
,FR5* ,REVOLUTION1 HE NEV] 9T]RUPT$ HIS TEA*+ ( PHILOSOPHY AT 
,KONIGSB]G 9 ,EA/ ,PRUSSIA4 ,HIS MO/ DI/9CTIVE CONTRIBUTION WAS ! 
9V5TION ( :AT HE CALL$ ! 'CRITICAL' PHILOSOPHY1 :I*1  
ASSUM+ AS A DATUM ?AT !RE IS KN[L$GE ( V>I\S K9DS1  
9QUIR$ H[ SU* KN[L$GE COMES TO BE POSSIBLE1 & D$UC$1 FROM 
! ANSW] TO ?IS 9QUIRY1 MANY METAPHYSICAL RESULTS AS TO ! 
NATURE ( ! WORLD4 ,:E!R !SE RESULTS W]E VALID MAY WELL BE 
D\BT$4 ,BUT ,KANT UND\BT$LY DES]VES CR$IT = TWO ?+S3 FIR/1  
= HAV+ P]CEIV$ ?AT WE HAVE A PRIORI KN[L$GE :I* 
IS NOT PURELY 'ANALYTIC'1 I4E4 SU* ?AT ! OPPOSITE W\LD BE 
SELF-CONTRADICTORY2 & SECONDLY1 = HAV+ MADE EVID5T ! 
PHILOSOPHICAL IMPORTANCE ( ! !ORY ( KN[L$GE4 

,BE=E ! TIME ( ,KANT1 IT WAS G5]ALLY HELD ?AT :ATEV] 
KN[L$GE WAS A PRIORI MU/ BE 'ANALYTIC'4 ,:AT ?IS WORD MEANS WILL 
BE BE/ ILLU/RAT$ BY EXAMPLES4 ,IF ,I SAY1 ',A BALD MAN IS A MAN'1 ',A 
PLANE FIGURE IS A FIGURE'1 ',A BAD POET IS A POET'1 ,I MAKE A PURELY 
ANALYTIC JUDGM5T3 ! SUBJECT SPOK5 AB\T IS GIV5 AS HAV+ AT 
LEA/ TWO PROP]TIES1 ( :I* ONE IS S+L$ \T TO BE ASS]T$ ( 
IT4 ,SU* PROPOSITIONS AS ! ABOVE >E TRIVIAL1 & W\LD NEV] BE 
5UNCIAT$ 9 REAL LIFE EXCEPT BY AN ORATOR PREP>+ ! WAY = A 
PIECE ( SOPHI/RY4 ,!Y >E CALL$ 'ANALYTIC' BECAUSE ! PR$ICATE 
IS OBTA9$ BY M]ELY ANALYZ+ ! SUBJECT4 ,BE=E ! TIME ( ,KANT 
IT WAS ?\<T ?AT ALL JUDGM5TS ( :I* WE C\LD BE C]TA9 A 
PRIORI W]E ( ?IS K9D3 ?AT 9 ALL ( !M !RE WAS A 
PR$ICATE :I* WAS ONLY P>T ( ! SUBJECT ( :I* IT WAS 
ASS]T$4 ,IF ?IS W]E SO1 WE %\LD BE 9VOLV$ 9 A DEF9ITE 
CONTRADICTION IF WE ATTEMPT$ TO D5Y ?++ ?AT C\LD BE KN[N 
A PRIORI4 ',A BALD MAN IS NOT BALD' W\LD ASS]T & D5Y 
BALDNESS ( ! SAME MAN1 & W\LD !RE=E CONTRADICT ITSELF4 ,?US 
ACCORD+ TO ! PHILOSOPH]S BE=E ,KANT1 ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION1  
:I* ASS]TS ?AT NO?+ CAN AT ! SAME TIME HAVE & NOT HAVE A 
C]TA9 PROP]TY1 SUFFIC$ TO E/ABLI% ! TRU? ( ALL A 
PRIORI KN[L$GE4 

,HUME 7#a#g#a#a-#g#f71 :O PREC$$ ,KANT1 ACCEPT+ ! USUAL VIEW 
AS TO :AT MAKES KN[L$GE A PRIORI1 DISCOV]$ ?AT1 9 
MANY CASES :I* HAD PREVI\SLY BE5 SUPPOS$ ANALYTIC1 & NOTABLY 
9 ! CASE ( CAUSE & EFFECT1 ! CONNECTION WAS REALLY SYN!TIC4 
,BE=E ,HUME1 RATIONALI/S AT LEA/ HAD SUPPOS$ ?AT ! EFFECT C\LD 
BE LOGICALLY D$UC$ FROM ! CAUSE1 IF ONLY WE HAD SUFFICI5T 
KN[L$GE4 ,HUME >GU$ -- CORRECTLY1 AS W\LD N[ BE G5]ALLY 
ADMITT$ -- ?AT ?IS C\LD NOT BE DONE4 ,H5CE HE 9F]R$ ! F> 
MORE D\BTFUL PROPOSITION ?AT NO?+ C\LD BE KN[N A 
PRIORI AB\T ! CONNECTION ( CAUSE & EFFECT4 ,KANT1 :O HAD 
BE5 $UCAT$ 9 ! RATIONALI/ TRADITION1 WAS MU* P]TURB$ BY 
,HUME'S SKEPTICISM1 & 5DEAVOR$ TO F9D AN ANSW] TO IT4 ,HE 
P]CEIV$ ?AT NOT ONLY ! CONNECTION ( CAUSE & EFFECT1 BUT ALL 
! PROPOSITIONS ( >I?METIC & GEOMETRY1 >E 'SYN!TIC' I4E4 NOT 
ANALYTIC3 9 ALL !SE PROPOSITIONS1 NO ANALYSIS ( ! SUBJECT WILL 
REVEAL ! PR$ICATE4 ,HIS /OCK 9/ANCE WAS ! PROPOSITION #g "4 #e "7 
#a#b4 ,HE PO9T$ \T1 QUITE TRULY1 ?AT #g & #e HAVE TO BE PUT TOGE!R 
TO GIVE #a#b3 ! IDEA ( #ab IS NOT CONTA9$ 9 !M1 NOR 
EV5 9 ! IDEA ( ADD+ !M TOGE!R4 ,?US HE WAS L$ TO ! 
CONCLUSION ?AT ALL PURE MA!MATICS1 ?\< A PRIORI1 IS 
SYN!TIC2 & ?IS CONCLUSION RAIS$ A NEW PROBLEM ( :I* HE 
5DEAVOR$ TO F9D ! SOLUTION4 

,! QUE/ION :I* ,KANT PUT AT ! BEG9N+ ( HIS 
PHILOSOPHY1 NAMELY ',H[ IS PURE MA!MATICS POSSIBLE8' IS AN 
9T]E/+ & DIFFICULT ONE1 TO :I* EV]Y PHILOSOPHY :I* IS NOT 
PURELY SKEPTICAL MU/ F9D SOME ANSW]4 ,! ANSW] ( ! PURE 
EMPIRICI/S1 ?AT \R MA!MATICAL KN[L$GE IS D]IV$ BY 9DUCTION 
FROM P>TICUL> 9/ANCES1 WE HAVE ALREADY SE5 TO BE 9ADEQUATE1 = 
TWO REASONS3 FIR/1 ?AT ! VALIDITY ( ! 9DUCTIVE PR9CIPLE 
ITSELF CANNOT BE PROV$ BY 9DUCTION2 SECONDLY1 ?AT ! G5]AL 
PROPOSITIONS ( MA!MATICS1 SU* AS 'TWO & TWO ALWAYS MAKE F\R'1  
CAN OBVI\SLY BE KN[N ) C]TA9TY BY CONSID]ATION ( A S+LE 
9/ANCE1 & GA9 NO?+ BY 5UM]ATION ( O!R CASES 9 :I* 
!Y HAVE BE5 F\ND TO BE TRUE4 ,?US \R KN[L$GE ( ! G5]AL 
PROPOSITIONS ( MA!MATICS 7& ! SAME APPLIES TO LOGIC7 MU/ BE 
ACC\NT$ = O!RWISE ?AN \R 7M]ELY PROBABLE7 KN[L$GE ( 
EMPIRICAL G5]ALIZATIONS SU* AS 'ALL M5 >E MORTAL'4 

,! PROBLEM >ISES ?R\< ! FACT ?AT SU* KN[L$GE IS 
G5]AL1 :]EAS ALL EXP]I5CE IS P>TICUL>4 ,IT SEEMS /RANGE ?AT 
WE %\LD APP>5TLY BE ABLE TO KN[ SOME TRU?S 9 ADVANCE AB\T 
P>TICUL> ?+S ( :I* WE HAVE AS YET NO EXP]I5CE2 BUT IT 
CANNOT EASILY BE D\BT$ ?AT LOGIC & >I?METIC WILL APPLY TO SU* 
?+S4 ,WE DO NOT KN[ :O WILL BE ! 9HABITANTS ( ,LONDON A 
HUNDR$ YE>S H5CE2 BUT WE KN[ ?AT ANY TWO ( !M & ANY O!R 
TWO ( !M WILL MAKE F\R ( !M4 ,?IS APP>5T P[] ( 
ANTICIPAT+ FACTS AB\T ?+S ( :I* WE HAVE NO EXP]I5CE IS 
C]TA9LY SURPRIS+4 ,KANT'S SOLUTION ( ! PROBLEM1 ?\< NOT 
VALID 9 MY OP9ION1 IS 9T]E/+4 ,IT IS1 H[EV]1 V]Y DIFFICULT1  
& IS DIFF]5TLY UND]/OOD BY DIFF]5T PHILOSOPH]S4 ,WE CAN1  
!RE=E1 ONLY GIVE ! M]E/ \TL9E ( IT1 & EV5 ?AT WILL BE 
?\<T MISLEAD+ BY MANY EXPON5TS ( ,KANT'S SY/EM4 

,:AT ,KANT MA9TA9$ WAS ?AT 9 ALL \R EXP]I5CE !RE >E 
TWO ELEM5TS TO BE DI/+UI%$1 ! ONE DUE TO ! OBJECT 7I4E4 TO 
:AT WE HAVE CALL$ ! 'PHYSICAL OBJECT'71 ! O!R DUE TO \R [N 
NATURE4 ,WE SAW1 9 DISCUSS+ MATT] & S5SE-DATA1 ?AT ! 
PHYSICAL OBJECT IS DIFF]5T FROM ! ASSOCIAT$ S5SE-DATA1 & ?AT 
! S5SE-DATA >E TO BE REG>D$ AS RESULT+ FROM AN 9T]ACTION 
BETWE5 ! PHYSICAL OBJECT & \RSELVES4 ,SO F>1 WE >E 9 
AGREEM5T ) ,KANT4 ,BUT :AT IS DI/9CTIVE ( ,KANT IS ! WAY 9 
:I* HE APPORTIONS ! %>ES ( \RSELVES & ! PHYSICAL OBJECT 
RESPECTIVELY4 ,HE CONSID]S ?AT ! CRUDE MAT]IAL GIV5 9 S5SATION 
-- ! COLOR1 H>DNESS ETC4 -- IS DUE TO ! OBJECT1 & ?AT :AT 
WE SUPPLY IS ! >RANGEM5T 9 SPACE & TIME1 & ALL ! RELATIONS 
BETWE5 S5SE-DATA :I* RESULT FROM COMP>ISON OR FROM CONSID]+ 
ONE AS ! CAUSE ( ! O!R OR 9 ANY O!R WAY4 ,HIS *IEF REASON 
9 FAVOR ( ?IS VIEW IS ?AT WE SEEM TO HAVE A PRIORI 
KN[L$GE AS TO SPACE & TIME & CAUSALITY & COMP>ISON1 BUT NOT 
AS TO ! ACTUAL CRUDE MAT]IAL ( S5SATION4 ,WE CAN BE SURE1 HE 
SAYS1 ?AT ANY?+ WE %ALL EV] EXP]I5CE MU/ %[ ! 
*>ACT]I/ICS AFFIRM$ ( IT 9 \R A PRIORI KN[L$GE1 BECAUSE 
!SE *>ACT]I/ICS >E DUE TO \R [N NATURE1 & !RE=E 
NO?+ CAN EV] COME 9TO \R EXP]I5CE )\T ACQUIR+ !SE 
*>ACT]I/ICS4 

,! PHYSICAL OBJECT1 :I* HE CALLS ! '?+ 9 ITSELF'1"9 HE 
REG>DS AS ESS5TIALLY UNKN[ABLE2 :AT CAN BE KN[N IS ! OBJECT AS 
WE HAVE IT 9 EXP]I5CE1 :I* HE CALLS ! 'PH5OM5ON'4 ,! 
PH5OM5ON1 BE+ A JO9T PRODUCT ( US & ! ?+ 9 ITSELF1 IS 
SURE TO HAVE ?OSE *>ACT]I/ICS :I* >E DUE TO US1 & IS 
!RE=E SURE TO CON=M TO \R A PRIORI KN[L$GE4 ,H5CE 
?IS KN[L$GE1 ?\< TRUE ( ALL ACTUAL & POSSIBLE EXP]I5CE1  
MU/ NOT BE SUPPOS$ TO APPLY \TSIDE EXP]I5CE4 ,?US 9 SPITE ( ! 
EXI/5CE ( A PRIORI KN[L$GE1 WE CANNOT KN[ ANY?+ 
AB\T ! ?+ 9 ITSELF OR AB\T :AT IS NOT AN ACTUAL OR POSSIBLE 
OBJECT ( EXP]I5CE4 ,9 ?IS WAY HE TRIES TO RECONCILE & H>MONIZE 
! CONT5TIONS ( ! RATIONALI/S ) ! >GUM5TS ( ! 
EMPIRICI/S4 

------------------- 

  
"9 ,KANT'S '?+ 9 ITSELF' IS ID5TICAL 9 DEF9ITION ) 
! PHYSICAL OBJECT1 NAMELY1 IT IS ! CAUSE ( S5SATIONS4 ,9 ! 
PROP]TIES D$UC$ FROM ! DEF9ITION IT IS NOT ID5TICAL1 S9CE 
,KANT HELD 79 SPITE ( SOME 9CONSI/5CY AS REG>DS CAUSE7 ?AT WE 
CAN KN[ ?AT NONE ( ! CATEGORIES >E APPLICABLE TO ! '?+ 9 
ITSELF'4 

  
------------------- 

,AP>T FROM M9OR GR\NDS ON :I* ,KANT'S PHILOSOPHY MAY BE 
CRITICIZ$1 !RE IS ONE MA9 OBJECTION :I* SEEMS FATAL TO ANY 
ATTEMPT TO DEAL ) ! PROBLEM ( A PRIORI KN[L$GE BY 
HIS ME?OD4 ,! ?+ TO BE ACC\NT$ = IS \R C]TA9TY ?AT ! 
FACTS MU/ ALWAYS CON=M TO LOGIC & >I?METIC4 ,TO SAY ?AT LOGIC 
& >I?METIC >E CONTRIBUT$ BY US DOES NOT ACC\NT = ?IS4 ,\R 
NATURE IS AS MU* A FACT ( ! EXI/+ WORLD AS ANY?+1 & !RE 
CAN BE NO C]TA9TY ?AT IT WILL REMA9 CON/ANT4 ,IT MI<T HAPP51 IF 
,KANT IS RI<T1 ?AT TO-MORR[ \R NATURE W\LD SO *ANGE AS TO MAKE 
TWO & TWO BECOME FIVE4 ,?IS POSSIBILITY SEEMS NEV] TO HAVE 
OCCURR$ TO HIM1 YET IT IS ONE :I* UTT]LY DE/ROYS ! C]TA9TY 
& UNIV]SALITY :I* HE IS ANXI\S TO V9DICATE = >I?METICAL 
PROPOSITIONS4 ,IT IS TRUE ?AT ?IS POSSIBILITY1 =MALLY1 IS 
9CONSI/5T ) ! ,KANTIAN VIEW ?AT TIME ITSELF IS A =M IMPOS$ 
BY ! SUBJECT UPON PH5OM5A1 SO ?AT \R REAL ,SELF IS NOT 9 TIME 
& HAS NO TO-MORR[4 ,BUT HE WILL /ILL HAVE TO SUPPOSE ?AT ! 
TIME-ORD] ( PH5OM5A IS DET]M9$ BY *>ACT]I/ICS ( :AT IS 
BEH9D PH5OM5A1 & ?IS SUFFICES = ! SUB/ANCE ( \R 
>GUM5T4 

,REFLECTION1 MOREOV]1 SEEMS TO MAKE IT CLE> ?AT1 IF !RE IS 
ANY TRU? 9 \R >I?METICAL BELIEFS1 !Y MU/ APPLY TO ?+S 
EQUALLY :E!R WE ?9K ( !M OR NOT4 ,TWO PHYSICAL OBJECTS & TWO 
O!R PHYSICAL OBJECTS MU/ MAKE F\R PHYSICAL OBJECTS1 EV5 IF 
PHYSICAL OBJECTS CANNOT BE EXP]I5C$4 ,TO ASS]T ?IS IS C]TA9LY 
)9 ! SCOPE ( :AT WE MEAN :5 WE /ATE ?AT TWO & TWO >E 
F\R4 ,ITS TRU? IS JU/ AS 9DUBITABLE AS ! TRU? ( ! ASS]TION 
?AT TWO PH5OM5A & TWO O!R PH5OM5A MAKE F\R PH5OM5A4 ,?US 
,KANT'S SOLUTION UNDULY LIMITS ! SCOPE ( A PRIORI 
PROPOSITIONS1 9 ADDITION TO FAIL+ 9 ! ATTEMPT AT EXPLA9+ 
!IR C]TA9TY4 

,AP>T FROM ! SPECIAL DOCTR9ES ADVOCAT$ BY ,KANT1 IT IS V]Y 
COMMON AMONG PHILOSOPH]S TO REG>D :AT IS A PRIORI AS 9 
SOME S5SE M5TAL1 AS CONC]N$ RA!R ) ! WAY WE MU/ ?9K 
?AN ) ANY FACT ( ! \T] WORLD4 ,WE NOT$ 9 ! PREC$+ 
*APT] ! ?REE PR9CIPLES COMMONLY CALL$ 'LAWS ( ?\<T'4 ,! 
VIEW :I* L$ TO !IR BE+ SO NAM$ IS A NATURAL ONE1 BUT !RE 
>E /RONG REASONS = ?9K+ ?AT IT IS ]RONE\S4 ,LET US TAKE AS 
AN ILLU/RATION ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION4 ,?IS IS COMMONLY /AT$ 9 
! =M ',NO?+ CAN BO? BE & NOT BE'1 :I* IS 9T5D$ TO 
EXPRESS ! FACT ?AT NO?+ CAN AT ONCE HAVE & NOT HAVE A GIV5 
QUALITY4 ,?US1 = EXAMPLE1 IF A TREE IS A BEE* IT CANNOT ALSO BE 
NOT A BEE*2 IF MY TABLE IS RECTANGUL> IT CANNOT ALSO BE NOT 
RECTANGUL>1 & SO ON4 

,N[ :AT MAKES IT NATURAL TO CALL ?IS PR9CIPLE A LAW ( 
?\<T IS ?AT IT IS BY ?\<T RA!R ?AN BY \TW>D 
OBS]VATION ?AT WE P]SUADE \RSELVES ( ITS NECESS>Y TRU?4 ,:5 
WE HAVE SE5 ?AT A TREE IS A BEE*1 WE DO NOT NE$ TO LOOK AGA9 9 
ORD] TO ASC]TA9 :E!R IT IS ALSO NOT A BEE*2 ?\<T ALONE 
MAKES US KN[ ?AT ?IS IS IMPOSSIBLE4 ,BUT ! CONCLUSION ?AT ! 
LAW ( CONTRADICTION IS A LAW ( ?\<T IS NEV]!LESS 
]RONE\S4 ,:AT WE BELIEVE1 :5 WE BELIEVE ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION1  
IS NOT ?AT ! M9D IS SO MADE ?AT IT MU/ BELIEVE ! LAW ( 
CONTRADICTION4 ,?IS BELIEF IS A SUBSEQU5T RESULT ( 
PSY*OLOGICAL REFLECTION1 :I* PRESUPPOSES ! BELIEF 9 ! LAW ( 
CONTRADICTION4 ,! BELIEF 9 ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION IS A BELIEF 
AB\T ?+S1 NOT ONLY AB\T ?\<TS4 ,IT IS NOT1 E4G41 ! BELIEF 
?AT IF WE ?9K A C]TA9 TREE IS A BEE*1 WE CANNOT AT ! 
SAME TIME ?9K ?AT IT IS NOT A BEE*2 IT IS ! BELIEF 
?AT IF A TREE IS A BEE*1 IT CANNOT AT ! SAME TIME 
BE NOT A BEE*4 ,?US ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION IS AB\T 
?+S1 & NOT M]ELY AB\T ?\<TS2 & AL?\< BELIEF 9 ! LAW 
( CONTRADICTION IS A ?\<T1 ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION ITSELF IS NOT 
A ?\<T1 BUT A FACT CONC]N+ ! ?+S 9 ! WORLD4 ,IF ?IS1  
:I* WE BELIEVE :5 WE BELIEVE ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION1 W]E NOT 
TRUE ( ! ?+S 9 ! WORLD1 ! FACT ?AT WE W]E COMPELL$ TO 
?9K IT TRUE W\LD NOT SAVE ! LAW ( CONTRADICTION FROM 
BE+ FALSE2 & ?IS %[S ?AT ! LAW IS NOT A LAW ( 
?\<T4 

,A SIMIL> >GUM5T APPLIES TO ANY O!R A PRIORI 
JUDGM5T4 ,:5 WE JUDGE ?AT TWO & TWO >E F\R1 WE >E NOT MAK+ 
A JUDGM5T AB\T \R ?\<TS1 BUT AB\T ALL ACTUAL OR POSSIBLE 
C\PLES4 ,! FACT ?AT \R M9DS >E SO CON/ITUT$ AS TO BELIEVE 
?AT TWO & TWO >E F\R1 ?\< IT IS TRUE1 IS EMPHATICALLY NOT 
:AT WE ASS]T :5 WE ASS]T ?AT TWO & TWO >E F\R4 ,& NO FACT 
AB\T ! CON/ITUTION ( \R M9DS C\LD MAKE IT TRUE ?AT 
TWO & TWO >E F\R4 ,?US \R A PRIORI KN[L$GE1 IF IT IS 
NOT ]RONE\S1 IS NOT M]ELY KN[L$GE AB\T ! CON/ITUTION ( \R 
M9DS1 BUT IS APPLICABLE TO :ATEV] ! WORLD MAY CONTA91 BO? :AT 
IS M5TAL & :AT IS NON-M5TAL4 

,! FACT SEEMS TO BE ?AT ALL \R A PRIORI KN[L$GE 
IS CONC]N$ ) 5TITIES :I* DO NOT1 PROP]LY SPEAK+ 
EXI/1 EI!R 9 ! M5TAL OR 9 ! PHYSICAL WORLD4 ,!SE 
5TITIES >E SU* AS CAN BE NAM$ BY P>TS ( SPEE* :I* >E NOT 
SUB/ANTIVES2 !Y >E SU* 5TITIES AS QUALITIES & RELATIONS4 
,SUPPOSE1 = 9/ANCE1 ?AT ,I AM 9 MY ROOM4 ,I EXI/1 & MY ROOM 
EXI/S2 BUT DOES '9' EXI/8 ,YET OBVI\SLY ! WORD '9' HAS A 
MEAN+2 IT D5OTES A RELATION :I* HOLDS BETWE5 ME & MY ROOM4 
,?IS RELATION IS SOME?+1 AL?\< WE CANNOT SAY ?AT IT EXI/S 
9 ! SAME S5SE 9 :I* ,I & MY ROOM EXI/4 ,! RELATION 
'9' IS SOME?+ :I* WE CAN ?9K AB\T & UND]/&1 =1 IF WE 
C\LD NOT UND]/& IT1 WE C\LD NOT UND]/& ! S5T5CE ',I AM 
9 MY ROOM'4 ,MANY PHILOSOPH]S1 FOLL[+ ,KANT1 HAVE MA9TA9$ ?AT 
RELATIONS >E ! WORK ( ! M9D1 ?AT ?+S 9 !MSELVES HAVE NO 
RELATIONS1 BUT ?AT ! M9D BR+S !M TOGE!R 9 ONE ACT ( 
?\<T & ?US PRODUCES ! RELATIONS :I* IT JUDGES !M TO HAVE4 

,?IS VIEW1 H[EV]1 SEEMS OP5 TO OBJECTIONS SIMIL> TO ?OSE 
:I* WE URG$ BE=E AGA9/ ,KANT4 ,IT SEEMS PLA9 ?AT IT IS NOT 
?\<T :I* PRODUCES ! TRU? ( ! PROPOSITION ',I AM 9 MY 
ROOM'4 ,IT MAY BE TRUE ?AT AN E>WIG IS 9 MY ROOM1 EV5 IF NEI!R ,I 
NOR ! E>WIG NOR ANY ONE ELSE IS AW>E ( ?IS TRU?2 = ?IS 
TRU? CONC]NS ONLY ! E>WIG & ! ROOM1 & DOES NOT DEP5D UPON 
ANY?+ ELSE4 ,?US RELATIONS1 AS WE %ALL SEE MORE FULLY 9 ! NEXT 
*APT]1 MU/ BE PLAC$ 9 A WORLD :I* IS NEI!R M5TAL NOR 
PHYSICAL4 ,?IS WORLD IS ( GREAT IMPORTANCE TO PHILOSOPHY1 & 9 
P>TICUL> TO ! PROBLEMS ( A PRIORI KN[L$GE4 ,9 ! NEXT 
*APT] WE %ALL PROCE$ TO DEVELOP ITS NATURE & ITS BE>+ UPON 
! QUE/IONS ) :I* WE HAVE BE5 DEAL+4 

,*RONOLOGY 3 
,NOVEMB] #c1 #aiaa 3 ,*APT] #h -- ,PUBLICATION4 
,JANU>Y #a#f1 #bb 3 ,*APT] #h -- ,ADD$4 

 FILE G5]AT$ FROM 3  
HTTP3_/_/REVOLTLIB4COM_/