summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/macros/latex/contrib/resphilosophica/rpsample.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNorbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900
committerNorbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900
commite0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch)
tree60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /macros/latex/contrib/resphilosophica/rpsample.tex
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'macros/latex/contrib/resphilosophica/rpsample.tex')
-rw-r--r--macros/latex/contrib/resphilosophica/rpsample.tex164
1 files changed, 164 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/macros/latex/contrib/resphilosophica/rpsample.tex b/macros/latex/contrib/resphilosophica/rpsample.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..aadb9e6fb4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/macros/latex/contrib/resphilosophica/rpsample.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+%\documentclass[screen]{resphilosophica}
+%\documentclass[manuscript]{resphilosophica}
+%\documentclass[preprint]{resphilosophica}
+%\documentclass[forthcoming]{resphilosophica}
+\documentclass{resphilosophica}
+\usepackage{kantlipsum}
+\title[A Sample Paper: A Template]{A Sample Paper:\\ \emph{A
+ Template}}
+\titlenote{This is the first titlenote}
+\titlenote{This is the second titlenote}
+\volumenumber{90}
+\issuenumber{1--2}
+\publicationyear{2012}
+\publicationmonth[Jan--Feb]{January--February}
+\papernumber{2}
+\onlinedate{January 1 2013}
+\manuscriptid{A31245}
+%\doinumber{}
+\paperUrl{http://borisv.lk.net/paper12}
+\author{Boris Veytsman}
+\address{Computational Materials Science Center, MS 6A2\\
+ George Mason University\\
+ Fairfax, VA 22030\\
+ USA}
+\email{borisv@lk.net}
+\urladdr{http://borisv.lk.net}
+
+% The next affiliation refers to both authors here
+\author{A. U. Th{\o}r}
+\author{C. O. R\"espondent}
+\address{Kant-Forschungsstelle Universit\"at Mainz\\
+ Colonel-Kleinmann-Weg 2\\
+ 55128 Mainz\\
+ Germany}
+\thanks{The work on this package was supported by Sant Lois University}
+
+\authornote{This is an authornote}
+
+\TCSelect{0,1}
+\TCSelect[cyan]{blueline}
+\ECSelect{0,1}
+
+\begin{document}
+%
+% Paper information
+%
+%
+% We do not want \\ in the headers, hence the
+% optional argument for \title
+
+% Abstract must PRECEDE \maketitle
+\begin{abstract}
+ The things in \TC{themselves are what first
+ (see \url{http://www.tug.org})} give rise to reason, as is
+ proven in the ontological manuals. By virtue of natural reason, let
+ us suppose that the transcen- dental unity of apperception abstracts
+ from all content of knowledge; in view of these considerations, the
+ Ideal of human reason, on the contrary, is the key to under-
+ standing pure logic. Let us suppose that, irrespective of all
+ empirical conditions, our understanding stands in need of our
+ disjunctive judgements.
+\end{abstract}
+\maketitle
+
+\kant[4]
+
+\setcounter{footnote}{0}
+
+\section{Introduction}
+\label{sec:intro}
+
+\begin{quotation}
+ \em
+ The reader should be careful to observe that the objects in
+ space and time are the clue to the discovery of, certainly,
+ our a priori knowledge, by means of analytic unity. Our
+ faculties abstract \TC[blueline]{from all content of knowledge; for these
+ reasons, the discipline of
+ \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human}{human} reason stands} in
+ need of the transcendental aesthetic.
+ \em \citep{Gregorio:Kantlipsum}
+\EditorialComment{Is this quotation necessary?}
+\end{quotation}
+
+\bigskip
+\noindent % normally the first paragraph after a section header is not
+ % indented automatically, but since we have an epigraph
+ % here, we need to explicitly suppress indentation.
+\kant[2-4]\kant[34]
+
+\kant*[7]\footnote{As is shown in the writings of \emph{Aristotle,} pure
+ logic, in the case of the discipline of natural reason, abstracts
+ from all content of knowledge. Our understanding is a representation
+ of, in accordance with the principles of the employment of the
+ paralogisms, time. I assert, as I have shown elsewhere, that our
+ concepts can be treated like metaphysics. See also \citep{Landau5},
+ \citep{Hoff10}, \citep{Rao07:BeliefPropagation}, \citep{faga06a},
+ \citep{bochnga}, \citep{aqui51a}, \citep{Mapas12}, \citep{ande97a},
+ \citep{irig93a}
+ and \citep{Knuth94:TheTeXbook}.}\EditorialComment[1]{Are all quotes
+ here relevant?}\textsuperscript{, }\footnote{Another footnote}
+
+\section{Discussion}
+\label{sec:discussion}
+
+\subsection{Negative Arguments}
+\label{sec:negative}
+
+
+We can deduce that the Ideal of practical reason, even as this relates
+to our knowledge, is a representation of the discipline of human
+reason. The things in themselves are just as necessary as our
+understanding.\footnote{As is proven in the ontological manuals, it
+ remains a mystery why our experience is the mere result of the power
+ of the discipline of human reason, a blind but indispensable
+ function of the soul. For these reasons, the employment of the
+ thing in itself teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content
+ of the Ideal of natural reason.} The noumena prove the validity of
+the manifold. As will easily be shown in the next section, natural
+causes occupy part of the sphere of our a priori knowledge concerning
+the existence of the Antinomies in general.\footnote{The never-ending
+ regress in the series of empirical conditions can be treated like
+ the objects in space and time. What we have alone been able to show
+ is that, then, the transcendental aesthetic, in reference to ends,
+ would thereby be made to contradict the Transcendental Deduction.
+ The architectonic of practical reason has nothing to do with our
+ ideas; \TC[1]{however, time can never furnish a true and demonstrated
+ science, because, like the Ideal, it depends on hypothetical
+ principles.} Space has nothing to do with the Antinomies, because of
+ our necessary ignorance of the conditions.}
+
+
+
+\kant[6-8]
+
+\subsubsection{An Aside on Numbers}
+
+\kant[124]
+
+\subsection{Positive Arguments}
+\label{sec:positive}
+
+\kant[12-14]
+
+\section{Conclusions}
+\label{sec:concl}
+
+\EditorialComment{A numbered list of conclusions might be better}
+\kant[17-20]
+
+\kant*[21]\footnote{As is shown in the writings of Hume, it remains a
+ mystery why our judgements exclude the possibility of the
+ transcendental aesthetic.}
+
+\begin{notes}{Bibliography notes}
+ \kant[4-12]
+\end{notes}
+
+
+
+
+\bibliography{rpsample}
+
+\end{document}