This applies to the ‘eternal’ parts of reality as well:  we shuffle our perceptions of intrinsic relation and arrange them just as freely.  We read them in one serial order or another, class them in this way or in that, treat one or the other as more fundamental, until our beliefs about them form those bodies of truth known as logics, geometries, or arithmetics, in each and all of which the form and order in which the whole is cast is flagrantly man-made.

Thus, to say nothing of the new facts which men add to the matter of reality by the acts of their own lives, they have already impressed their mental forms on that whole third of reality which I have called ‘previous truths.’  Every hour brings its new percepts, its own facts of sensation and relation, to be truly taken account of; but the whole of our past dealings with such facts is already funded in the previous truths.  It is therefore only the smallest and recentest fraction of the first two parts of reality that comes to us without the human touch, and that fraction has immediately to become humanized in the sense of being squared, assimilated, or in some way adapted, to the humanized mass already there.  As a matter of fact we can hardly take in an impression at all, in the absence of a pre-conception of what impressions there may possibly be.

When we talk of reality ‘independent’ of human thinking, then, it seems a thing very hard to find.  It reduces to the notion of what is just entering into experience, and yet to be named, or else to some imagined aboriginal presence in experience, before any belief about the presence had arisen, before any human conception had been applied.  It is what is absolutely dumb and evanescent, the merely ideal limit of our minds.  We may glimpse it, but we never grasp it; what we grasp is always some substitute for it which previous human thinking has peptonized and cooked for our consumption.  If so vulgar an expression were allowed us, we might say that wherever we find it, it has been already faked. This is what Mr. Schiller has in mind when he calls independent reality a mere unresisting [u lambda nu], which is only to be made over by us.

That is Mr. Schiller’s belief about the sensible core of reality.  We ‘encounter’ it (in Mr. Bradley’s words) but don’t possess it.  Superficially this sounds like Kant’s view; but between categories fulminated before nature began, and categories gradually forming themselves in nature’s presence, the whole chasm between rationalism and empiricism yawns.  To the genuine ‘Kantianer’ Schiller will always be to Kant as a satyr to Hyperion.