diff options
author | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
---|---|---|
committer | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
commit | e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch) | |
tree | 60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /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.tex | 164 |
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} |