[6] It should be noticed that 'things-in-themselves' and 'things as they are in themselves' have a different meaning. [7] Cf. p. 55 and ff. The final form of Kant's conclusion, then, is that while things in themselves are not, or, at least, cannot be known to be spatial, 'phenomena,' or the appearances produced in us by things in themselves, are spatial. Unfortunately, the conclusion in this form is no more successful than it is in the former form, that things are spatial only as perceived. Expressed by the formula 'phenomena are spatial', it has, no doubt, a certain plausibility; for the word 'phenomena' to some extent conceals the essentially mental character of what is asserted to be spatial. But the plausibility disappears on the substitution of 'appearances'--the true equivalent of Kant's _Erscheinungen_--for 'phenomena'. Just as it is absurd to describe the fact that the stick only looks bent by saying that, while the stick is not bent, the appearance which it produces is bent, so it is, even on the face of it, nonsense to say that while things are not spatial, the appearances which they produce in us are spatial. For an 'appearance', being necessarily something mental, cannot possibly be said to be extended. Moreover, it is really an abuse of the term 'appearance' to speak of appearances _produced by_ things, for this phrase implies a false severance of the appearance from the things which appear. If there are 'appearances' at all, they are appearances _of_ things and not appearances _produced by_ them. The importance of the distinction lies in the difference of implication. To speak of appearances produced by things is to imply that the object of perception is merely something mental, viz. an appearance. Consequently, access to a non-mental reality is excluded; for a perception of which the object is something belonging to the mind's own being cannot justify an inference to something beyond the mind, and the result is inevitably solipsism. On the other hand, the phrase 'appearances of things', whatever defects it may have, at least implies that it is a non-mental reality which appears, and therefore that in perception we are in direct relation to it; the phrase, therefore, does not imply from the very beginning that the apprehension of a non-mental reality is impossible. The objection will probably be raised that this criticism is much too summary. We do, it will be said, distinguish in ordinary consciousness between appearance and reality. Consequently there must be some form in which Kant's distinction between things in themselves and phenomena and the conclusion based upon it are justified. Moreover, Kant's reiterated assertion that his view does not imply that space is an illusion, and that the distinction between the real and the illusory is possible _within_ phenomena, requires us to consider more closely whether Kant may not after all be entitled to hold that space is not an illusion.[8]