FOOTNOTES:
[178] Compare, with the following paragraphs, the admirable discussion in Mr Hobhouse's Theory of Knowledge (Methuen 1896), Part I. Chapter II.
[179] I speak of sense-perception instead of sensation, so as not to prejudge the issue as to the sensational nature of space.
[180] See Vaihinger's Commentar, II. pp. 86–7, 168–171.
[181] See Caird, Critical Philosophy of Kant, Vol. I. p. 287.
[182] Ursprung der Raumvorstellung, pp. 12–30.
[183] See the references in Vaihinger's Commentar, II. p. 76 ff.
[184] Commentar, II. p. 71 ff.
[185] E.g. by Caird, op. cit. Vol. I. p. 286.
[186] I have no wish to deny, however, that space is essential in the subsequent distinction of Self and not-Self.
[187] See also Book I. Chap II. passim; especially p. 51 ff. and pp. 70–1.
[188] Logic, p. 51 ff.
[189] For the This, on such a hypothesis, has a purely temporal complexity, and is not resolvable into coexisting Thises.
[190] [Chapter III. Section A, (§ 131).]
[191] Cf. Hannequin, Essai critique sur l'hypothèse des atomes, Paris 1895, Chap. I. Section III.; especially p. 43.
[192] See [Chapter II. § 69 ff.]
[193] See third antinomy below, [§ 201 ff.]
[194] This atom, of course, must not be confounded with the atom of Chemistry.
[195] Ursprung der Raumvorstellung, p. 15.
[196] See Vaihinger's Commentar, II. pp. 189–190.
[197] See ibid. p. 224 ff. for Kant's inconsistencies on this point.
[198] The fourth and fifth in the first edition, the third and fourth in the second.
[199] Cf. Vaihinger's Commentar, II. p. 218.
[200] Cf. Vaihinger's Commentar, II. p. 207.
[201] Cf. James, Psychology, Vol. II., p. 148 ff.
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.
A minus sign is represented by the n-dash character "–". Date and number ranges also use the n-dash "–".
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example, co-exist, coexist; every-day, everyday; connexion; assertorial; apodeictic; premisses.
[§ 82], 'so Erdmannn confidently' replaced by 'so Erdmann confidently'.
[§ 150] Footnote [157], 'Delboeuf' replaced by 'Delbœuf' for consistency.
[§ 152], 'one subdivison must' replaced by 'one sub-division must'.
[§ 159] Footnote [167], 'Delboeuf' replaced by 'Delbœuf' for consistency.
[§ 204], 'and homogenous;' replaced by 'and homogeneous;'.