'This criticism,' it may be said, 'is too sweeping. It may be true that the process which Kant describes is really making in the literal sense and not knowing, but Kant's mistake may have been merely that of thinking of the wrong kind of synthesis. For both ordinary language and that of philosophical discussion imply that synthesis plays some part in knowledge. Thus we find in ordinary language the phrases '_putting_ 2 and 2 _together_' and '2 and 2 _make_ 4'. Even in philosophical discussions we find it said that a complex conception, e. g. gold, is a _synthesis_ of simple conceptions, e. g. yellowness, weight, &c.; that in judgement we _relate_ or _refer_ the predicate to the subject; and that in inference we _construct_ reality, though only mentally or ideally. Further, in any case it is by thinking or knowing that the world comes to be _for us_; the more we think, the more of reality there is for us. Hence at least the world _for us_ or _our_ world is due to our activity of knowing, and so is in some sense made by us, i. e. by our relating activity.' This position, however, seems in reality to be based on a simple but illegitimate transition, viz. the transition to the assertion that in knowing we relate, or combine, or construct from the assertion that in knowing we recognize as related, or combined, or constructed--the last two terms being retained to preserve the parallelism.[41] While the latter assertion may be said to be true, although the terms 'combined' and 'constructed' should be rejected as misleading, the former assertion must be admitted to be wholly false, i. e. true in no sense whatever. Moreover, the considerations adduced in favour of the position should, it seems, be met by a flat denial of their truth or, if not, of their relevance. For when it is said that _our_ world, or the world _for us_, is due to our activity of thinking, and so is in some sense _made_ by us, all that should be meant is that our _apprehending_ the world as whatever we apprehend it to be _presupposes_ activity on our part. But since the activity is after all only the activity itself of apprehending or knowing, this assertion is only a way of saying that apprehending or knowing is not a condition of mind which can be produced in us _ab extra_, but is something which we have to do for ourselves. Nothing is implied to be made. If anything is to be said to be made, it must be not our world but our activity of apprehending the world; but even we and our activity of apprehending the world are not related as maker and thing made. Again, to speak of a complex conception, e. g. gold, and to say that it involves a synthesis of simple conceptions by the mind is mere 'conceptualism'. If, as we ought to do, we replace the term 'conception' by 'universal', and speak of gold as a synthesis of universals, any suggestion that the mind performs the synthesis will vanish, for a 'synthesis of universals' will mean simply a connexion of universals.