Geometry (n.) would only be able to say that no space of more than three dimensions has been found so far, if space were learned from experience.
Geometry (n.) can say what must hold of every triangle only because the triangle is nothing in itself: were it a thing apart from the subject, what lies in our conditions for constructing it would not have to pertain to it.
Geometry (n.) is possible only because the intuition of space has its seat in the subject, as the form of being affected by objects — how else could an outer intuition precede the objects themselves?
Geometry (n.) cannot get a triangle out of the concept of three lines; all your effort is in vain, and you are forced to take refuge in intuition.
Geometry (n.) never has to beg for a certificate of its concept's pedigree; its objects are given to it a priori in intuition.
Geometry (n.) is undeniably valid of experience, because empirical intuition is possible only through the pure intuition geometry describes; objections to this are the chicanery of a falsely instructed reason.
Geometry (n.) was studied by the ancients with ardour in parabola and ellipse, untroubled by shallow minds asking what use it was; they worked unwittingly for those who would find in them the paths of falling stones and planets.
Geometry (n.) is a pure and sublime science yet seems to forfeit some dignity by needing compass and ruler — though what it really means are the simplest ways imagination can exhibit figures a priori, which no instrument can match.
Geometry (n.) is valid of everything in space not though it is a figment of fancy but because sensibility, whose form geometry describes, first makes outer objects possible.