1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
|
\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}
%\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}
|
