am faced with only three options. First, that such a system is unattainable which will eventually lead to philosophic despair. Second that the concept of such a system is actually meaningless, because all knowledge is really only a result of direct experience with various particulars of reality. This is an extreme form of existentialism, which ignores the real existence of communicable properties and thus limits itself too greatly in my opinion. The third possibility is that such a system is both meaningful and attainable, but only when something more basic than "I" serves as the foundation. Hence, the need to recognize and accept certain a priori truths which owe their existence to something which I cannot prove but must accept on faith if any further progress is to be made. If "I" were to be the only foundation for a philosophy, then we would have the implicit assumption that everything, which I encounter, must be derived from myself. I suppose this could be the case, but, if it is so, then I am hard-pressed to explain the myriad of experiences, which seem to be contrary to the desires of my self. (Pain, frustration, evil, etc.) No, a far better explanation for such things is that they are real in a way, which is independent of me. They are real for the same reasons that I am real. Namely, that the reality of these experiences, or at least the sources of these experiences, and of I myself are dependent on an ultimate ground. This ultimate ground, of course, is independent of its consequence. To cut through this morass of unintelligibility, let us call myself, and all these other things which affect me, nature. That on which nature is dependent for its property of real existence, we will call supernature. It is only possible to build an all-encompassing philosophical system when we take this supernature as our starting point. To do otherwise is an exercise in futility. If all things do not depend on me for their property of real exist...
