Instead of noting and of examining all the objections made to the _a priori_ synthesis (which we have already substantially discussed in the development of our treatise), it will be of assistance to add some explanations, which will prevent false interpretations of that concept. These false interpretations sometimes (as often happens) mingle with the true even in the philosopher who discovered it, and confer force and authority upon several of the objections to the very reality of the _a priori_ synthesis. [Sidenote: _A priori synthesis in general and logical a priori synthesis._] In the first place, in accordance with the formula given in Logic we must not speak of the _a priori_ synthesis in general, but of the _logical a priori synthesis._ The _a priori_ synthesis belongs to all the forms of the Spirit; indeed, the Spirit, considered universally, is nothing but _a priori_ synthesis. The synthesis is operative in the æsthetic activity, not less than in the logical. For how could a poet create a pure intuition, if he did not proceed from a given fact, from some passionate moment of his own, conditioned and constituted in a particular way? Without something to intuite and to express could there ever be a poet? And would he be a poet, if he were to repeat that something mechanically, without transforming it into pure intuition? In his pure intuition, there is and there is not matter: not as brute matter, but as formed matter, or form. Thus it is said with reason that art is pure form, or that matter and form, content and form, in art are wholly one (_a priori_ æsthetic synthesis). The _a priori_ synthesis is not less operative in the practical activity than in the æsthetic and logical (that is, in the theoretic activity). It is impossible to will without material to will, or to will outside the given material. The practical man accepts actual conditions, and at the same time transforms them with his volitional act, creating something new, in which those conditions are and are not. They are, because the action achieved is in relation to them; they are not, because being new, it has transformed them. _A priori_ synthesis, in general, then, means spiritual activity; not abstract but concrete spiritual activity, that is to say, the spirit itself, which is _condition_ to itself and _conditioned_ by itself. Thus the _a priori_ synthesis, which is constituted by the coincidence or identity of the judgment of definition with the individual judgment, is not _a priori_ synthesis in general, but logical _a priori_ synthesis. [Sidenote: _Non-logical a priori syntheses._]