The statements of some others may be interpreted to mean...

The statements of some others may be interpreted to mean that sensory perceptions provide the grounds and capital for intellectual perceptions, although this is not to say that sensory forms are really changed to intellectual concepts. The Table of the Categories Judgment Category Example Quantity Universal Unity All men are mortal. Particular Plurality Some men are philosophers. Singular Totality Socrates was a sage. Quality Affirmative Reality Man is mortal.

Negative Negation The spirit is not mortal. Infinite Limitation The spirit is non-material. Relation Categorical Of inherence and subsistence God is just. Hypothetical Of causality and dependence If God is just to people, He will give rewards and punishments. Disjunctive Of community Byzantium was the greatest nation of ancient Europe. Modality Problematical Possibility—Impossibility Some planets may have living things on them. Assertorical Existence—Nonexistence The earth is round.

Apodeictical Necessity—Contingency God is necessarily just. We mentioned previously that extreme empiricists, such as the positivists, basically deny the existence of intellectual concepts, and they interpret them as forms of mental words. Some empiricists, such as the French Condiac, limit experiences which cause the appearance of mental concepts to sense experience. Others, such as the English John Locke, extend them to inner experiences.

Among them Berkeley has an exceptional position, and he limits experiences to inner experience, for he denies the existence of material things. On this basis, sensory experience is not possible. We must add that most empiricists, especially those who accept internal experiences, do not limit the realm of knowledge to the material, and they prove metaphysical matters by the intellect.

Although, according to the doctrine of the fundamentality of sensation, and the complete dependence of mental conceptions on sensory conception, such belief is not very logical. The denial of metaphysics is also without reason. Because of this, Hume, who had noticed this point, considered cases which cannot be directly experienced as dubious.

It is clear that extensive detailed criticism of both tendencies would require a separate and weighty text, so that the statements of each thinker could be reported and examined, but this work is not appropriate in this book. Hence, it suffices to briefly criticize their basic ideas without regard to the particular features of each position.