%\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}