Chapter 1 introduces basic astronomical terms and concepts used throughout the book.

Chapter 7 returns to Kant for a deeper analysis of his views and their relation to the Euclidean mathematical tradition. Chapter 6 revealed that Euclid defined neither magnitude nor homogeneity, so that these notions are at best implicitly defined by the Euclidean-Eudoxian theory of proportions. Kant reworks the Euclidean theory of magnitudes, defining magnitude in terms of his own understanding of homogeneity, which admits of no qualitative difference of the manifold and which I call strict homogeneity. Most importantly, he thinks that intuition is required to represent either a continuous or a discrete manifold without qualitative difference. This role for intuition in Kant’s philosophy of mathematics and experience has not been appreciated, but finds support in various texts, especially Kant’s lectures on metaphysics and his criticisms of Leibniz’s views in the Amphiboly. Given Kant’s understanding of qualities, differences in dimension correspond to qualitative differences, so that Kant’s account corresponds to Euclid’s understanding of homogeneous magnitudes. Understanding the role of intuition allows us to appreciate the role of the categories of quantity and intuition in part–whole relations and the composition of magnitudes. The chapter closes with clarifying the sense in which intuition is required for the representation of magnitudes.

Chapter 10 briefly comments the influence of Euclid’s theory of magnitude and the Eudoxian theory of proportions on Kant’s thought in light of advances in mathematics from the early seventeenth century to the late eighteenth century. Despite these advances, mathematics was still often viewed as a science of magnitudes and their measure. The chapter also indicates further work to be done to understand Kant’s philosophy of geometry, arithmetic, algebra, and analysis.

Examining privacy theory begins with what is absent from present accounts, that is, the central importance of our personal concerns about our existential reality. These concerns, and the disposition to seek ways to distance and camouflage them with constructed concerns, is at the heart of the inducements of what emerged as the mythological trajectory of Deity, State, Market and Technology. The impact of the ideas and practices left behind by these failed but persisting magnitudes is what is normalised in us and comes to comprise what we see as our private world. However, these ideas and practices are mythological subjections. There are two dominant present accounts of privacy, the ‘Constitutional’ (which is sourced from the ideas and practices of Deity, State and Market), which is primarily a bourgeois account, and the ‘Selected Flow of Information’ account (which is inspired by the movement of information within a social context, especially in the technological age). Given the mythological content of both accounts, the way forward needs to take an entirely different approach. This will relocate existential reality to the centre of its frame but also emphasise an ethic which rejects subjection, one framed by respectful self-responsibility.