Other disputes, far enough apart in significance and nature, concerning the nature of the concept, acquire a more precise meaning when referred to our subdivision of pseudoconcepts into _empirical_ or _representative,_ and _abstract._ Thereby we can understand why it has been asked if the concepts are _concrete_ or _abstract, general_ or _universal, contingent_ or _necessary, approximate_ or _rigorous;_ if they are obtained _a posteriori_ or _a priori,_ by _induction_ or _deduction,_ by _synthesis_ or _analysis,_ and so on. This series of disputes likewise cannot be settled, save by admitting that both contending parties are right and wrong, and demonstrating that pseudoconcepts (which are alone here in discussion) are constructed by analysis, and by deduction are _a priori,_ and have the characters of abstractness, rigorousness, universality and necessity, if it be a question of _abstract_ pseudoconcepts, that is to say, of empty fictions, outside experience; while, on the other hand, they are constructed by synthesis, and by induction are _a posteriori,_ and have the characters of concreteness, approximation, mere generality and contingency, if they be empirical or _representative_ pseudoconcepts, that is to say, groups of representations, which do not go beyond representation and experience. Indeed, from this last point of view, no error was made in denying any difference between the (representative) _concept_ and the _general representation._ It is false that this latter is the result of psychical mechanism or association, and the former of psychical purpose, because there is nothing mechanical in the spirit; and the general representation, if it is a product of the spirit, is as teleological as the other, indeed is absolutely one with the other. It obeys, like it, the law of _economy,_ or, as we have shown, the practical ends of convenience and utility. [Sidenote: _Crossing of the various disputes._] But these last disputes have crossed with that which we first examined between realism and nominalism, and have sometimes taken on the same meaning. This must be kept in mind, to serve as a guide in the dense forest. Is the concept _a priori_ or _a posteriori,_ universal or general, necessary or contingent? These questions and others like them were sometimes understood as equivalent to the question: is it real or nominal, truth or fiction? [Sidenote: _Other logical disputes._]