As pseudoconcepts imitate pure concepts and the corresponding judgments of definition, so by means of them are imitated pure individual judgments, and spiritual formations are obtained, which can be conveniently called _individual pseudojudgments._ [Sidenote: _Their practical character._] The character of these pseudojudgments, like that of the pseudoconcepts, is not cognitive, but practical and more properly mnemonic. Fixing our attention upon certain examples of such judgments, if we say of an animal: "It is a squirrel," or "It is a platyrrhine monkey"; if we say of a house: "This house is thirty metres high and forty wide"; if of a painting we say: "The _Transfiguration_ is a sacred picture," or "The _Danaë_ is a mythological picture"; or if of a literary work we say, "The _Promessi Sposi_ is a historical romance";--what have we learned as to the true nature of the _Promessi Sposi,_ of the _Transfiguration,_ of the _Danaë,_ of that house and of those animals? Upon close consideration, nothing at all. The animals have been put into one or another compartment or glass case, decorated with a name which might also be different from what it is, as the compartment and the glass case might also be different; the house has been compared in respect of its dimensions to other houses or to an object arbitrarily assumed as the unit of measurement, which is the metre, but which might be the foot, the palm, and so on; the two pictures and the literary work have been looked at from the visual angle of an arbitrary character, such as the mythological, religious or historical subject. As to what they truly are, as to how all these things came to be and to live, and as to their relation with other things and with the Whole, we have been silent. Their _value,_ as it is called, remains unknown. [Sidenote: _Genesis of the distinction between judgments of fact and judgments of value; and criticism of them._]