 There are various questions one might raise about this sort of idealism. First, one might think that the idealist response concedes too much to the skeptic. Perhaps we can and should accept a gap between our evidence and the claims for which they are evidence, resisting the skeptic’s demand that evidence guarantee the truth of the propositions it supports. We can concede that our justified beliefs about the world are fallible. Second, we might note that absolute idealism cannot guarantee truth either, because it outstrips the knowledge available to individual conscious minds. The existence of a corporate consciousness is something outside the conscious grasp of any of us individually. This is especially true, given that Green thinks that the corporate consciousness lies outside of space and time. Third, Green can be read as offering a transcendental argument that empirical knowledge is possible only on the assumption that absolute idealism is true. Even if that argument were otherwise successful, it would establish absolute idealism only if empirical knowledge is possible. But if absolute idealism is the price of empirical knowledge, then one might wonder if we do indeed have empirical knowledge.