"Every one admits the proposition: A is A; just as that A = A, because such is the meaning of the logical copula; and indeed without the least deliberation we perceive and affirm its complete certainty. Should any one ask a demonstration of it, we should by no means give any, but should maintain that the proposition is absolutely certain, that is, without any further foundation. Thus incontestibly proceeding with general consent, we claim the right to _suppose something absolutely_. "We do not, in affirming the preceding proposition to be certain in itself, suppose that A _is_. The proposition A is A, is not equivalent to this: A _is_, or, _there is an_ A. (_To be_ placed without a predicate has an entirely different meaning from _to be_ with a predicate, whereof more hereafter.) If we make A denote a space contained between two straight lines, the proposition remains exact, although the proposition, A _is_, be evidently false. But, we assert: _if_ A _is_, A _is thus_. The question is in no wise whether A is in general or not. The question is not of the _contents_ of the proposition, but only of its _form_; not whereof we know something, but what we know of any object whatever. "Consequently, by the above assertion, that the proposition is absolutely certain, this is established, that between the _if_ and the _thus_ there is a necessary connection; and it is this necessary connection between both which is supposed _absolutely_ and _without other foundation_. I call this necessary connection provisionally = X." All this show of analysis amounts only to what every logical student knows, that in every proposition the copula, or the verb _to be_, denotes not the existence of the subject, but its relation to the predicate. There was no need of so many words to tell us so simple a thing, nor of such affected efforts of the understanding in treating of an identical proposition. But let us arm ourselves with patience, and continue to listen to the German philosopher: "But to return to A itself, _whether_ A is or not; nothing is as yet affirmed thereon. The question then occurs: under what condition is A? "X at least is supposed _in_ and _by_ the _me_, for it is the _me_ which judges in the above proposition, and indeed judges by X as by a law, which consequently being given to the _me_, and by it established absolutely and without other foundation, must therefore be given to the _me_ by the _me_ itself."