Stewartconsidershimselftobeaninductivephilosopherappealingfranklytoexperienceandreason；andwasinpracticeamanofthoroughlyliberalandgenerousfeelings。Hewasheartilyinfavourofprogressasheunderstoodit。Onlyhewillnotsacrificecommonsense；thatistosay，thebeliefswhichareinfactprevalentandcongenialtoexistinginstitutions。Commonsense，ofcourse，condemnsextremes：andiflogicseemstobepushingamantowardsscepticisminphilosophyorrevolutioninpractice，hecanalwaysprotestbytheconvenientdeviceofintuitions。
IhavegonesofarinordertoillustratethenatureofthesystemwhichtheUtilitarianstooktobetheantithesisoftheirown。ItmaybefinallyremarkedthatatpresentbothsideswereequallyignorantofcontemporarydevelopmentsofGermanthought。WhenStewartbecameawarethattherewassuchathingasKant’sphilosophy，hetriedtoreaditinaLatinversion。
Parr，Imayobserve，apparentlydidnotknowofthisversion，andgaveupthetaskofreadingGerman。Stewart’sexamplewasnotencouraging。Hehadabandonedthe’undertakingindespair’partlyfromthescholasticbarbarismofthestyle，partly’myutterinabilitytocomprehendtheauthor’smeaning。’
HerecognisessimilaritybetweenKantandReid，butthinksReid’ssimplestatementofthefactthatspacecannotbederivedfromthesensesmorephilosophicalthanKant’s’superstructureoftechnicalmystery。’57*
IhavedweltuponthesideinwhichStewart’sphilosophyapproximatestotheempiricalschool，becausetheUtilitarianswereapttomisconceivetheposition。TheytookStewarttobetheadequaterepresentativeofallwhoacceptedonebranchofaninevitabledilemma。Theacceptanceof’intuitions，’