period of the history of the universe. It does not deal with think-
ing, perceiving and knowing in general, but with human thinking,
perceiving and knowing. For epistemology there is something that
it must take as unchanging, viz., the logical and praxeological
structure of the human mind.

One must not confuse knowledge with mysticism. The mystic
may say that "shadow and sunlight are the same." ¹ Knowledge
starts from the clear distinction between A and non-A.

We know that there were ages of cosmic history in which there
did not exist beings of the kind we call Homo sapiens, and we are
free to assume that there will be again ages in which this species
will not exist. But it is vain for us to speculate about the condi-
tions of beings that are, in the logical and praxeological structure
of their minds and in the power of their senses, essentially
different from man as we know him and as we are ourselves.
Nietzsche's concept of a superman is devoid of any epistemologi-
cal meaning.

Epistemology deals with the mental phenomena of human
life, with man as he thinks and acts. The main deficiency of
traditional epistemological attempts is to be seen in their neglect
of the praxeological aspects. The epistemologists dealt with think-
ing as if it were a separate field cut off from other manifestations
of human endeavor. They dealt with the problems of logic and
mathematics, but they failed to see the practical aspects of
thinking. They ignored the praxeological a priori.

The shortcomings of this approach became manifest in the
teachings of natural theology as distinguished from revealed
theology. Natural theology saw the characteristic mark of deity
in freedom from the limitations of the human mind and the
human will. Deity is omniscient and almighty. But in elaborating
these ideas the philosophers failed to see that a concept of deity
that implies an acting God, that is, a God behaving in the way
man behaves in acting, is self-contradictory. Man acts because he

-2-