This does not mean that we can assume nothing a la radical skepticism. There is a theoretical minimum that must be assumed before our receptive learning can take place. Among them: we must have a resting positive intentionality towards the target of our inquiry. To study object a, there must at least be something intended by a. The conditions that allow for the situation we call “subjective apprehension of an object” (aka experience) include metaphysical assumptions about that object. This startling conclusion follows simply from the starting point of representationalism. My being impacted modifies my consciousness/contents and these contents, as raw, do not as yet present an object for me—as everyone now knows thanks to this over-appreciated viral video. That is, there is a difference between the undergoings of consciousness and recognizing an object, not least of which is the intentionality of the epistemic relation that separates subject and object. Under representationalism, the difference between the two is subjective processing. The subject receives impressions and then does something to them. It is the subject itself that makes undergoings into an epistemic intentionality relation to an object. Necessary acts by the subject become necessary features of the object, and these give rise to necessary beliefs about the object. These are necessary assumptions that cannot be abstained from. To learn about an object, we must at least include all the metaphysical assumptions that permit thetic or positional consciousness of the object. These conditions are the topic of Kant’s First Critique.