The Problems of Philosophy discussion

So it turns out I was wrong about what "self-evidence" refers to: it is not just about a priori first principles! There are in fact other sorts of things that can be known without proof: facts (complexes of objects and relations to each other) that we are directly acquainted with, most especially. If we are acquainted with facts, they have to be (self-evidently) true. There are also judgments we can make about these but these can be true or false. Plus, there are gradations of self-evidence: I like the examples he uses of the slowly changing colour and the horses' hooves drifting further away.