”[Even discounting Kant’s insistence upon the conceptual character of arithmetical science, and] allowing that he derives arithmetical concepts and propositions from the _pure intuition of time_, this teaching, to whatever objections it may lie open, has certainly not the merely _psychological_ meaning which the majority of its critics have ascribed to it. If it contained only the trivial thought, that the empirical act of counting requires time, it would be completely refuted by the familiar objection which B. Beneke has formulated: ‘The fact that time elapses in the process of counting can prove nothing; for what is there over which time does not flow?’ It is easily seen that Kant is only concerned with the ‘transcendental’ determination of the concept of time, according to which it appears as the type of an ordered sequence. William [Rowan] Hamilton, who adopts Kant’s doctrine, has defined algebra as ‘science of pure time or _order in progression_.’ That the whole content of arithmetical concepts can really be obtained from the fundamental concept of _order_ in unbroken development, is completely confirmed by Russell’s exposition. As against the Kantian theory it must, of course, be emphasised, that it is not the _concrete_ form of time intuition which constitutes the _ground_ of the concept of number, but that on the contrary the pure logical concepts of sequence and of order are already implicitly contained and embodied in that concrete form.”