MASTER NEGATIVE NO. 91-80120 MICROFILMED 1 992 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States ~ Title 17, United States Code ~ concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR : BOARDMAN, RUFUS NORMAN TITLE: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MEANING IN.... PLACE: [CHICAGO ? DATE: [1920 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET Master Negative # Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record I 149,9 B63 Boardman, Rufus Nonnan. /' T^'^vZ^'' significance of meaning in pragmatism and neo- . realism ... by Rufus Norman Boardman. [Chicago? 3 p. 1., 76 p., 1 1. 24"». Thesis (pir. d.) --University of Chicago. 1919. Bil)h(%raphy: 1 leaf at end. Restrictions on Use: 1. PragmatisqH(Philosophy) 2. Realism. Library of Congress jjUqiv. of Chicago Libr. B832.B6 c2j *. ', 24-12637 :__:J^. hij±\ TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA REDUCTION RATIO: // FILM SIZE IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA (IIAJ IB IIB DATE FILMED: ^^(^/-z f /f/ INITIALS___^^2p HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGETCT Association for information and Image Management 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 12 3 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm li iiiiliiiiliiiilii|ilii|ilii|ilimlii|iliiiJ Inches I I I I I I I I I 2 3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1.0 LI 1.25 m 2.8 1 ^-^ i! 5 3.2 2.2 ■ 6.3 Is ii£ 2.0 LS. li .. biu.u. 1.8 1.4 1.6 lllllll llllllllllll ■ MflNUFPICTURED TO fillM STfiNDPRDS BY APPLIED IMRGE, INC. . Mill Mqhar^is.: !mQV ^925 T/ie Sig?iificance of Meaning in Pra^^matism a?id Neo- Realism BV RUFUS NORMAN BOARDMAN ^SLAsrmkM::^'' Columbia ^Hnibersiitp in tfje Citp of ifjeto gorU It. : !,: • "US ■:i| / ' ffilff UttitirrBttg of Ollflraga THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MEANING IN PRAGMATISM AND NEO-REALISM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY I DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY BY RUFUS NORMAN BOARDMAN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following dissertation represents a real growth in my interpretation of the pragmatist-realist controversy. Need- less to say, it does not aim to settle the dispute but rather to make more articulate the issue between the two schools. It is hoped that the position taken herein may be found helpful and stimulating. Since this study was undertaken a new species of realism has been evolved. I have not attempted to incorporate Criti- cal Realism into the discussion as I do not regard it as es- sentially different from other types of realism. Realism is realism despite its various species. It has been my aim to be fair to both viewpoints through- out the discussion. For my sympathetic understanding of the realistic position, I am indebted to Professors R. B. Perry and E. G. Spaulding of Harvard and Princeton Universities respec- tively. I wish also to acknowledge my indebtedness to the men of the Philosophy Department in The University of Chicago, particularly to Professors G. H. Mead and A. W. Moore of that department. For many suggestions in connection wath its publication and for his help in reading the proofs, I owe much to my friend. Dr. H. S. Mahood. R. N. B. In^^ .^ y "5 CONTENTS Introduction CHAPTER I The Absolutistic-Idealistic Background 4 CHAPTER n The Position of Meaning in Realism 22 CHAPTER HI Pragmatism and Meaning 39 CHAPTER IV Comparative Valuation 55 The Significance of Meaning in Pragmatism and Neo-Realism INTRODUCTION The philosophy of a period reflects the method which its science employs. To such an extent is this true that the entire social structure is permeated with its effects. This has never been better illustrated than in the contrast between modern and Aristotelian science. Ancient science was a matter of definition and classification. A thing was known accordmg to its essential attributes ; to determine these and thus place the individual or the thing in his or its logical position m the natural hierarchy were the two main objects of science. The world was arranged in a complex order of genera and species with their various differentia. This method of classification held sway until the beginning of the modem period with the introduction of the so-called "inductive" method. The biologi- cal sciences were the last to be influenced by the new move- ment, and it was not until the beginning of the nineteenth century that the old method crumbled under its own weight in these sciences. The naturalist had erected such an mtri- cate, complex classificatory table of organic and vital phenom- ena that it was only natural that active minds should seek an explanation as to the origin of, and the relationship between, the different orders which nature presented. The old method thus paved the way for the introduction of the evolutionary hypothesis which found its best expression in the celebrated work of Darwin. . , ^ u • The influence of Aristotelianism upon the social fabric is shown by the order of society which arose through the mediaeval feudal structure. Both the church and the state were organized upon this basis and indeed the entire papal controversy, stated in logical terms, was as to which should be the Summum Genus or the Genus Generalissiunir-^the king or the pope. Both were agreed that this dignified position, 2 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism properly speaking, belonged to the Deity, but after giving Him this recognition, they were quite content to give Him the celes- tial while they should have the terrestrial world for them- selves In fact the history of democracy from the exactmg of Magna Charta from King John in 1215, the Petition of Rights of 1628 and Bill of Rights of 1688, down through the French and American revolutions, the upheavals of continental Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century, to the great world war, are nothing more than attempts to rid the world of an Aristotelian society. The task is by no means complete as the present situation indicates. Modern science is not interested in the essence of things. It is not the "what" as such, but the "what it does," from which modern science takes its cue. How does the thing act ? What is its function ? What does it mean .?* These are the questions from which present-day science takes its departure from an- cient science. So in a democratic society we are not interested in who an individual happens to be but in what he can do. Mis mere being is of no great consequence either one way or the other. His name, just as that of a thing, stands for a meaning, a function, a work that is done. The determination of the "what" or the "who" is important only in so far as it stands for a convenient symbol which represents a certain meaning, a definite kind of activity or a relatively fixed func- tion. A thing or an individual is as it or he functions. Since the downfall of scholasticism, philosophy has con- stantly been reminded of the "sins of the Fathers" and has been subjected to the most adverse criticism because of its being so abstract and spculative, so impractical. The philoso- pher, in his attempt to find Reality, became so far removed from reality, that even today two distinct attitudes toward him are quite pronounced. He is either looked upon with the greatest of reverence, as sort of an awe inspiring individual or is treated as a specimen of curiosity or as a personage for con- tempt. So many have been the attempts to bring philosophy back to earth that to those outside the philosophic world the news that thinking has at last found its home will no doubt be received with some degree of skepticism. Especially •Meaninir is here uaeu in a functional sense. The Aristotelian would have asked thU question but his meanimr would have referred to a riatonic es^enc-. Introduction 3 is this true when we consider Hegel's most admirable attempt to ally philosophy with science and then recall how his efforts only resulted in the most impossible of all unintelligible philosophies ! However this may be, both the new realism and pragmatism are putting forth their claims to do this very thing. It is the purpose of the present investigation to esti- mate the claims of each in the light of the above statement as to the interests of science. Paradoxical as it may seem. Prof. Spaulding's effort to "de-thingize"^ the world is what makes his attitude scientific. Pragmatism is viewed by some as sort of a "second-edition of the natural sciences," while some real- ists have accused it of being nothing but "naturalism brought up-to-date." Both the realist and the pragmatist are agreed that the idealist is hopeless when it comes to having a working criterion for truth and error, but each accuses the other of being in the same predicament. Both claim to be equally scientific, yet their logics are quite different. The dissertation aims to show the concept of meaning as the central issue in these diverging logics. Despite Prof. Spaulding's contention that we have philosophical problems quite independent of their history,^ it would be well to pause and see if, after all, the historical set- ting of a problem does not affect the problem. Perhaps by so doing some light may be thrown on the realistic-pragmatic controversy. Had Prof. Spaulding been a little less convinced that philosophical problems persist regardless of their history, he might have seen that his own Neic Rationalism is pregnant with conclusions that are based upon a logic which arose out of a controversial setting. It would seem quite possible to shov/ that the pragmatists and the realists find their different meanings of "meaning" out of the character of the controver- sies from which the schools arose and that consequently their meanings must be translated into a different setting in order to apply to each other. The following chapter aims to place the respective meanings in their historical setting. 1. The New Rationalism, Ch. III. 2. The New Rationalism, Ch. I. CHAPTER I. The Absolustic-Idealistic Background If there be anything that is now a truism it is the fact that we cannot hope to understand any movement until we know something of the circumstances and conditions under which it arose, the historical setting and the social background which gave rise to it. In thus separating ourselves from the social milieu in which we happen to be moving and putting ourselves into the situation we are trying to understand, we become sympathetic or are at least better able to approach our prob- lem with a sympathetic attitude. Failure to see the other man's viewpoint together with the divine approval of what happens in a community consciousness, have been a constant source of w^ars and struggles in the past. Although the think- ing world has long been rid of this fallacy, it is rather inter- esting to note that in our attitude toward the recent war we have been as absolute and dogmatic in our judgments as peo- ple of the days of St. Anselm or St. Thomas Aquinas. Idealism has long been aware of the necessity of getting things in their proper relation, so much so in fact that it has not been satisfied in stopping with anything short of the uni- verse. In attempting to analyze any given situation, in order properly to understand it, the idealist found it necessary to drag in the whole universe, so intricate is the relationship be- tween things. But in so doing, he has left us in a position little, if any, better than we were with our tribal consciousness. In the last analysis, idealism has only substituted an Absolute approval for what had hitherto been communal, thus making the causes for struggle and sources for misunderstandings all the more intense. So, in order to see clearly the issue between pragmatism and realism we should, at least for a few moments, detach ourselves from the present stage of the conflict and enter the discussions where the movements first appear. For this pur- pose let us follow in brief some of the developments of ro- mantic or absolute idealism. Historical Background 5 The Unknowable which Kant had been willing to leave as such except for the mere postulation of its being, became the chief interest of the romanticists and it was to get in touch with the world ground that was the cause of all their strivings. Instead of remaining unknowable it takes the form of an Absolute Self with whom it is the business of human selves to get in communication. In so doing one finds his true self. It is only in losing oneself in the Absolute that one finds him- self. Human personality is completely lost in the Absolute. When this is accomplished then has one reached the highest state of perfection. Various devices for getting in touch with the Absolute began to appear. For Fichte the w^orld was moral to the core. It was made as it is that the moral self might be realized. In overcoming the obstacles which the world everywhere pre- sented, one was realizing his moral self and was thus approach- ing nearer to the goal of all effort, viz., that of becoming the Absolute. With Schelling the world presented the character- istics of beauty throughout. He saw nature from the stand- point of the artist. The artist in creating his object was only following the same course which nature was everywhere pur- suing. His conception, however, is a little more positive than that of Fichte's for with Schelling one must create in order to get in touch with the Absolute. With Fichte it was simply a matter of setting up an object only to knock it down again ; in so doing one was doing his duty ; but with Schelling one must not only knock down the fence but he must get over it, must do something, must create something. With Hegel the world is rational through and through; whatever is, is ra- tional. It is through Reason that one finds the Absolute, Thought is only the Absolute becoming conscious of Himself, History is the Absolute Person realizing himself. He there- fore works through the State ; the state is the highest embodi- ment of Reason; in the state Reason reaches its zenith. In order to realize oneself one must give oneself up to the state for it is in so doing that one identifies himself with the Abso- lute Reason. It is this aspect of Hegel's philosophy that Treitschke made explicit and which together with Kant's blind and empty categorical imperative to which it gave a definite 6 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism content, that has no doubt given a tremendous moral and re- ligious support to the war.^ Romantic idealism, in its endeavor to reduce the world and all that is to a single personal attribute, had deprived it of all meaning whatsoever. The dialectic^ proceeds somewhat as follows : One would like to believe that the world is of the character which he would most like to have it. A moral being introspects his own consciousness and finds a moral conscience within. He then tries to make nature conform to the concep- tion of morality which he finds. But when he examines nature he finds facts which somehow do not quite measure up to the conception of morality with which he started. The cyclones, tornadoes, earthquakes and other "unforeseen acts of God' do not seem "good'' in the sense with which he began his inquiiT. They do not meet his approval but how shall he condemn them for are they not good? The ultimate character of things is moral, nevertheless. It may be barely possible that he has been mistaken as to what constitutes morality and since the nature of things is moral, his conception can only be checked up by further and more extended observations of nature. Thus he may do either of two things : He is either compelled to bring nature up to the ideal conception from which he began his in- quiry or is forced to lower his own conception so as to include the wars, famines, pestilences, crimes and all the tragedies of life. He may still insist that these are "good" but it is quite ob- vious that in so doing he has robbed the term of all its meaning. When everything is good there is nothing that is really good. Idealism, in its endeavor to eliminate evil from reality, has also vanquished the good, the very thing which it wished to preserve. The same dialectic holds when we try to reduce reality to any single category, whether it be that of morality, beauty, reason, will or what not. The very meaning which you wish to preserve loses all content in the process. The Idealists, like Spinoza, in their endeavor to view things sub specie aeternitatis had lost sight of any distinction between the good and the bad, the moral and the immoral. What pro- gram cannot be justified from the standpoint of eternity! You can justify anything, no matter how vicious it may be in 1. Dewey: German Philosophy and Politics, Lecture UI. 2. Cf. Perry : Present Conflict of Ideals, Ch. XVIII. V, . . r Historical Background T its content, when you once take this standpoint. Such a philosophy has no working criterion for distinguishing the good and the bad and it was for this that the pragmatist called the idealist to account. The same difficulty arises when we come to account for the distinction between truth and error. "It was in defense of social order and values that Plato— not Moses, nor Par- menides— fixed *real species' with a fixity that has held for twenty-three centuries."^ In order to combat successfully the "vicious relativism" of the Sophists as expressed in the Protagorean doctrine that "Man is the measure of all things," he had to find some common stuff out of which knowledge is made. This he found in his metaphysical Idea, the universal, the pattern from which particulars are drawn. In order to relieve us from the skepticism of the homo mensnra doctrine, he established truth on such a firm basis that it became im- possible for human beings ever to be in error.^ In this re- spect absolute idealism is quite on a plane with the old Pla- tonic idealism (now realism) in that endeavoring to save truth from a Berkeleyan subjectivism— equally as mischievous as the old Protagorean relativism— it, too, has not only failed to find a working criterion for truth but has made it equally as impossible for such a thing as error ever to take place. This we shall see from the following discussion of Prof. Bosanquet. Bosanquet defines judgment as the "reference of an ideal content to reality. "^ In this statement the subject of the judg- ment is always reality while the predicate is composed of the "ideal content" which is attributed to it. Reality itself fur- nishes us the data while the meaning is found in the ideal content which is predicated of it. This initial chasm between reality as represented in the subject and an ideal content as represented by the predicate is going to furnish us with a num- ber of neat difficulties. It is quite desirable that we be able to know reality, otherwise our knowledge would be illusory. The subject of any judgment must be reality itself but that reality, from Bosanquet's point of view, exists independently of the judgment itself. Our ideas must reproduce a reality which ex- ists apart from the judging process. But if we are to know 1 A W. Moore: Pragmatism and Its Critics, p. 35. 2. Ibid, Ch. III. , , „ , 8. Bo'janquet: Logic, Vol. II, p. 1. *> ' • 8 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism reality we must do so by our judgments about it. In every judgment, however, the actual subject is gained through per- ception and is only an idea of reality. Thus when I judge that *'the type is large" it is not the type itself that appears in the judgment but the idea of the type. Consequently the judgment is not of reality but only relates two ideas to one another and reality itself is not known in the judgment. It is not reality itself of which an idea is predicated but only an idea of reality.^ Granted, for the sake of argument, that reality does ap- pear in the subject of a judgment, the question then arises as to the relationship between the part which appears and the whole of reality. Each judgment is fragmentary for in each judgment only a part of reality is given. From these partial bits of reality how are we to construct the whole, the complete and finished system of which Bosanquet conceives? Our judg- ments get meaning only in so far as they are referred to the whole of reality but how are we to know the nature of the whole? It can never be given in judgment itself for then our subject and predicate would merge into one; the ideal and the real would coincide and we should have no judgment at all. We should have only a bare identity. The Absolute alone — for which we are thankful — is capable of such judgments. Such a judgment would be as meaningless and blank as Schel- ling's Absolute which Hegel characterized as a "universal night in which all cows are black." Bosanquet sees the difficulty in setting up a reality with which thought must correspond and which is independent of judgment. Consequently he brings reality back into »the judgment in order that it may be known. The following pas- sage shows that he is conscious of the dilemma in which he is placed and his attempt to wrestle with it. "The Reality to which we ascribe the predicate is un- doubtedly self-existent ; it is not merely in my mind or in my act of judgment; if it were, the judgment would only be a game with my ideas Still the reality which attracts my concentrated attention is also within my act of judgment; it is not even the whole of reality present to my perception ; still less of course the whole self -existent Reality which I dimly \-, K> •V 1. Of. Helen B. 'Piompaon : Boaanquet* Theory of Judgment in Studies in Logical Theory, pp. 86-96. Historical Background 9 presuppose This Reality is in my judgment; it is the point at which the actual world impinges upon my conscious- ness as real, and it is only by judging with reference to this point that I can refer the ideal content before my mmd to the whole of reality which I at once believe to exist, and am attempting to construct. The Subject is both in and out of the Judgment, as Reality is both in and out of my conscious- ness."^ Obviously to say that the subject is both in and out of the judgment does not solve the difficulty; it recognizes it but like most of these "both-and" relations, which start with a fundamental dualism, is quite unintelligible. The antithesis between thought and reality leads Bosan- quet into the following dilemma: reality must be outside of the judgment, otherwise we should know only our ideas; but if it is, we can never know it. It must, therefore, be inside of the judgment for us to know it but in so placing it, we have only a knowledge of our ideas. Therefore, it must be "both in and out," whatever that may mean. We find the same sort of difficulties in the ideal world as were noted in the real. An idea is a meaning and as such is applicable to a number of particulars but an idea as image, as psychical content is particular. How the particular image is related to the universal meaning is a problem similar to that of how the subject is related to reality.^ As meaning an idea must refer to a reality beyond itself but how this is to be done, we have already seen Bosanquet is somewhat em- barrassed in accounting for. The situation is very well stated by Dr. Thompson in the following words : "If the predicate is to be affirmed of reality (and if it be* not, it has no logical value), then it must, when affirmed, be in some sense an accurate representation of reality. But the predicate is an idea, and, moreover, an idea which is, both m its existence and meaning palpably the outcome of transforma- tions wrought upon given sensory contents by the individual consciousness. Since the one point of contact with reality is a sensory experience, the more simple sensory experiences are reacted upon and worked over, the farther they recede from reality. The idea seems, therefore, in its very essence, a thing which never can be affirmed of reality. As image it is itself a 1. Logic, Vol. I. pp. 113-14 (i Ed.) quoted from Dr. Thompson. 2. Studies in Logical Theory. PP. 96-106. 3. Ibid. pp. 101-02. A V*»' 10 Meaning in Pragmatism and Kealism reality, but not affirmed; as meaning it is the reality (the image) manipulated for individual ends. Why suppose that by distorting reality we get it in shape to affirm 0/ reality/ Moreover, the farther an idea is removed from immediate sen- sory experience— in other words, the more abstract it becomes —the less is the possibility of afTirming of reality. 1 he final outcome of this point of view, if we adhere rigorously to its logic is that the more thinking we do, the less we know about the real world." The outcome of Bosanquet's position is that we are un- able to know reality. Neither our sense data nor our world of meanings has any reference to the real world. The data are always the representation of the world as it appears to us as individuals while the objective world of meanings to which our ideas have reference, are powerless to go beyond them- selves so as to reach reality ; they prove only the convention- alized constructs of human beings. Neither in subject nor in predicate is reality anywhere known and knowledge turns out to be exactly what Bosanquet asserted that it was not, viz., a relation between ideas. The reality that those ideas are sup- posed to represent is never given so that it is impossible to know when our ideas are a true or a false representation of the real world. How are we to know when our ideas do correspond to reality when we can never know the nature of reality? When Bosanquet comes to the discussion of inference the gap between the objective world of meanings and reality seems to have been mysteriously bridged and so well has the bridge been constructed that it becomes quite impossible for the traveler ever to fall off into the depths of error. Inference differs from judgment in that it is a mediate reference of an ideal content to reality,^ i. e. the reference is made through a universal. We have already noted that in judgment the idea has no way of referring to reality, but in inference it is reality itself that is working through us ; the idea is the universal and the universal is the reality that is operating within us. If you make the judgment that "the man is stupid" and somebody asks you for evidence, you immediately give reasons such as that he works diligently but never seems to know anything ; he talks incessantly but never has anything to say and that Historical Background 11 ^ ; [> * *■ it seems to be the general opinion among those who know him, etc. In these cases the meanings operate within us as infer- ences from the first judgment. Just why these particular ideas should happen to come in substantiation of the meaning of "stupid" in preference to any number of others that might occur, this theory of inference is unable to account for. Given a universal in judgment and the other universals simply come through inference. How can they be false for m each case it is a fragment of reality that is working within us. Why should Reality, the Whole, the Absolute ever con- descend to send even a most infinitesimal part of himself through me, a poor, finite being? What could possibly be the motive on the part of the Absolute for such a procedure as this? He must indeed be a very gracious Absolute that he should stoop to humble himself in this manner. Each universal is a bit of reality and granted that these universals do operate within us as Bosanquet claims they do, then we have immediately precluded the possibility for error. If it is reality itself that is working through us, how would it be possible to err? If the universals are operating effectively, reality must be known as it actually is and there is no room for error. Error can only be accounted for by means of a false universal, but when it is reality that is at work within us, how could such a thing be possible? A false universal is a self -destructive term ; it would be an unreal real. Granted, however, that there are such, when should we know when we had capturd a true or a false universal? The argument re- duces itself to the following dilemma : We must either admit that the universals are operating within us or that they are not so doing ; if we admit that they are, then does it become impossible ever to be in error; if we take the other horn of the dilemma and maintain that the universals do not operate within us, then the whole theory is false for this is the central contention of the position. Even though there could be such a thing as a false universal, we could not be mistaken in our inference for it would have to operate as such through us. In attempting to bridge the gap between the ideal and the real, which Bosanquet's conception of judgment carries with it, he has identified the two in inference, only at the expense 1. Logic, Vol. II, Ch. I, pp. 1-4. ^v 12 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism of error. He is now in just the opposite position from that in which the account of judgment left him. There it was im- possible to know the real world but now it is equally as im- possible ever to be mistaken in regard to our inferences about it. In judgment we are living in a world all of which is an illusion; in inference we are dwelling in a world where all things are true. Thus if we stick to the system, the universal of the absolute idealist performs the same function as the old Platonic Idea. It establishes truth so firmly that it makes it quite impossible ever to account for error. The problem is the reverse from the one with which we set out.^ Then there seemed to be no truth for all was subject to illusion and mere appearance, but now all is truth and there is no such thing as error. Experience gets meaning for the idealist in so far as it is referred to the Whole. He does attempt to account for error by the partialness of judgment, but obviously, since all judgments are necessarily partial, truth is on the same plane with error. The only difference between truth and error is one of degrees. In so far as our judgments approximate the Whole of Reality, they become true and are false in proportion as they fail to relate themselves to the whole of experience. Since the Absolute contains all experience. He alone is capable of knowing The Truth. All judgments are necessarily partial — with the exception of those of the Absolute, which are not judg- ments at all — but some are less partial than others. We thus have degrees of partialness so that those judg- ments that are more partial contain a greater amount of error than those which are less so. This works very nicely until we begin to apply it, but how are we to know to what extent our judgments are partial when we have no way of knowing the whole? With this conception of truth, how would you go about it to determine the truth or falsity of a judgment? You are hungry and judge that the food which you see will satisfy your hunger, and yet you have no way of estimating the truth of your judgment only as you refer it to the universe-at-large. Absolute Truth is indeed gratifying but as a hungry individual you might starve during the complex process of "otheration." 3 t » 1 »^ Historical Background 13 How much help would you receive on a problem should you go to Mr. Joachim and he should speak thus with you : "Truth, we said, was the systematic coherence which* characterized a significant whole. And we proceeded to iden- tify a significant whole with *an organized individual exper- ience, self-fulfilling and self -fulfilled.' Now there can be one and only one such experience: or only one significant whole, the significance of which is self-contained in the sense re- quired. For it is absolute self -fulfillment, absolutely self -con. tained significance, that is postulated; and nothing short of absolute individuality— nothing shoii: of the completely whole experience — can satisfy this postulate. And human knowledge — not merely my knowledge or yours, but the best and fullest knowledge in the world at any stage of its development — is clearly not a significant whole in this ideally complete sense. Hence, the truth, which our sketch described, is — from the point of view of the human intelligeyice — an Ideal, and an Ideal which can never as such, or in its completeness, be actual as hum.an experience." If the idealist's account of truth is true, then his own statement is not the correct one for it can only be partially true. Since all judgments are partial, his conception of truth is not quite true.- It is a judgment about truth and as such is partial and hence not exactly true. Whether it be Prof. Royce's "purposive Absolute" or Mr. Joachim's "systematic coherence of a significant whole" or Mr. Bradley's "whole of sentience," the same criticism applies. Like Kant and Spencer, they seem to know more about the "unknowable"— the Absolute in this case — than their own partial judgments would warrant. A philosophy which finds it possible to convert deliberately evil into good, which makes the ultimate character of things so perfect that there is no chance for error and which is so in- terested in the Absolute that it entirely forgets humanity, is radically defective for the kind of a world in which we as human beings have elected to dwell. It is to remedy some of these defects that the pragmatist comes to the rescue.^ As to how well he succeeds we shall see later but we are here concerned in noting that it is to combat the absolutistic ex- tremes into which idealism had led that the pragmatist first 1. Of. Moore: Prairmatiara and its Critics, Ch, III. 1. Nature of Truth, pp. 78. 79. 2. Cf. Bertrand Russell : Philosophical Essays, pp. 153, 64. 3 Cf. Moore: Pragmatism and Its Critics, Ch. IV. 14 Meaning in I'ragmatism and Realism Historical Background 15 appears in the scenes. Pragmatism then, arose as a revolt against absolutism. As the leader of such a revolt, it aims to uphold the counter thesis of the relativity of truth. It is v^ith this position that pragmatism starts. It has come to stand for very much more than this but it is quite possible to show that its later developments have come as the result of defending its initial thesis. Instrumentalism vi^ill be placed in this con- nection at another point in the discussion. The important point for us to hold in mind is that pragmatism developed as a reaction against absolutism. Absolutism in politics gave way long before absolutism in thought and it will not be until the latter too, has given way, that the world will be made safe for democracy. Pragmatism in this sense is the champion of democracy. It gets its first meaning in the absolutistic con- troversy. The pragmatist has the realist's most hearty co-operation even though the latter does have room for absolute truths. For him there are many truths and not one Truth— in his en- deavor to make the idealist live in a world very different in character from the one he has pictured and in which he would so much like to dwell. It is not the absolutistic character of idealism in which the realist is primarily interested. This does not seem nearly so repugnant to him as the very ideal character itself. Realism protests against the subjectivistic extremes into which idealism had fallen, and to understand its polemic, we shall have to go back to Bishop Berkeley's teachings. The key to Berkeley's position is that things have their being in so far as they are perceived. Their esse is their 2)ercepL This he established by means of a syllogism which may be stated somewhat as follows : There can be no being apart from quality; there can be no quality apart from the mind ; therefore, there can be no being apart from the mind. If you were to abstract all the qualities from an object, you would get pure being, but pure being would be nothing. It is probably in this sense that Hegel thinks of '*being" and "noth- ing'' as synonymous. But if we are to have a being about which you may speak intelligently it must possess some quali- ties. That there can be no qualities apart from the mind, is ^ » • « * • *. * »- * » * the old story as to whether there would be sound if there were no ear to hear it, color if there were no eye to see it, etc. From this, the argument runs, it would follow that the ultimate char- acter of things must be mental or ideal The realist insists that there is a real world which exists quite independently of its being perceived and furthermore, that its character is not mental. To prove his position the realist has found it necessary to point out the fallacies in the proofs of idealism and to erect a logical structure in defense of his own thesis of independ- ence. Thus Mr. Russell shows how we must distinguish be- tween the psychical process by means of which a thing is known and the thing known.^ The act of knowledge is mental but this is no reason why we should say that the thing known is of that character. Dr. Montague finds it his duty to refute Berkeleyan idealism and does so by pointing out the fallacy of "psychophysical metonymy"- involved in the argument. He states the argument in the following syllogism in Barbara: ''Ideas are incapable of existing apart from a mind. Physical objects in so far as they are perceived or known at all are cer- tainly 'ideas: All physical objects are, therefore, incajmble of existing apart from a mindJ'' He then points out the same fallacy as noted above by Mr. Russell, only the latter is not so skillful in naming it. It is due to the ambiguity of the word "idea" which is used in the major premise to denote "the act or process of perceiving, while in the minor premise it is used to denote the object of that act, i. e., the thing or content that is perceived." This "verbal fallacy of psychophysical metonymy" is only a new way of saying the old formal fallacy of "ambiguous middle." Berkeley's refutation of Locke's representative theory of knowledge is accepted by the realist as establishing "epis- temological monism." The former argued that if our ideas are like reality, the representation is redundant and that if they are not like reality, we can have no knowledge ; in either case the representation is useless. With the epistemological monism of the idealist, the realist agrees but that the knowl- 1. Cf. Russell : Problems of Philosophy, Ch. IV. 2 Cf! The New Realism, p. 256 ff. 5. Ibid. p. 258. * ' s: • 16 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism edge relation is one between the mind and its ideas, he cannot accept. He sees another alternative which is that of having the objects act directly upon us so that knowing becomes a "mind- object" rather than a "mind-idea" relation.^ We do not have knowledge of "ideas" but knowledge of "objects." Prof. Perry attacks the idealist by showing that he has argued from the standpoint of the "ego-centric predicament." This fallacy consists in arguing from the fact that whenever anything is discovered, it is always found in the knowledge relation to the assumption that knowing is a necessary condi- tion for being. It involves either the "redundant inference that all known things are known, or the false inference that all things are known."^^ It is of course impossible to examine the character of things when not known but from this it can- not be argued that knowing is in any way related to being. This is exactly the procedure of the argument from the ego- centric predicament. It assumes that because knowledge is necessary to the discovery of an object, it is therefore con- stitutive of that object. The realist admits the difficulty in the method of procedure in being unable to eliminate the knower from an act of knowledge, as would obviously be necessary in showing the nature of things when not knovm, but fails to see, how because of this predicament, one is able to argue that knowing is essential to being. This predicament together with the fallacy of "initial predication," constitute the historic proofs for idealism.^ This latter fallacy consists in defining a thing in terms of the initial relationship with which one happens to meet it. The relationship may be entirely accidental and have nothing to do with the essence of the entity so defined but because one happens to meet with it in this relation, he proceeds to define the object accordingly. It is by means of such a definition that idealism reduces the character of things to idecis, finding them to be of this nature when they are known. (The argument is of course based upon an epistemological monism, which holds that we have knowledge only of our ideas, an epistemological monism which, as already noted, the realist rejects.) But /J Historical Background 17 even if the theory be true, the realist contends that we have no right to frame our definition according to it because it may be only an accidental relation. Closely connected with this fallacy is that of "exclusive particularity,"^ which fails to recognize that a term may stand in more than one relation and still be the same term. Thus a man may be a member of a church, a business concern, a uni- versity or any number of social groups and still be the same man.* To define him in terms of the church, which happens to be the first relation in which we find him in this case, is obviously misleading; but this is exactly what the idealist does when he makes being dependent upon knowledge. It is as absurd as it would be to define a gambler as one who goes to church because you might happen to meet him in this con- nection for the first time. Just how the realist knows when he has the essential attributes of an entity, is rather difficult to say, but we shall return to this difficulty at another point. Realism has tried to force the idealist to recognize the fact that there is a real world which exists quite independent- ly of its being known. Idealism bravely faced the realist and tried to make him see that it is not subjective in character any longer but that it had become objective, just as objective in fact as his own real world. But the hard-hearted realist was not satisfied with this concession on the part of the idealist and even refused to believe him, holding that in so far as idealism had become objective, it had become realistic, that it is impossible for idealism ever to become really objective^ and that it is inherently subjectivistic. In other words, "ob- jective idealism" is a self-destructive term, as meaningless as a "democratic military discipline," or a Kaiser to make the world safe for democracy. Not satisfied with this, the realist also found the fact that the ultimate character of things is mental, very repulsive to him and again summoned the idealist into court. He not only challenged the position that things have no being apart 1. Cf. Perry: Present PhiloeophicaJ Tendencies, pp. 119-1S2. 2. The New Realism, pp. 11, 12. 8. Cf. Ibid, pp. 128-82. 1. Cf. The New Realism, P- 1^. , 2. Cf. Perry: Present Philosophical Tendencies, p. 162 f. •The oucstion may well be raiBed as to what extent the man is the same man when he com2s1nto relationship with these different social groops. This offers a good ex- Se of how impossible it is to get any meaning into a bare, metaphysical indi- vidual. See James's chapter on The Self. 18 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism from their being known but also the phenomenalistic position that knowledge is constitutive of its object. Things are dif- ferent when in the knowledge relation than they really are, 1. e., when apart from that relation. Knowledge is either necessary for the being of things or else it modifies their character in such a way as to make it impossible to know them as they really are, the Kantian position. Idealism thus found itself caught between the scylla of Berkeley an subjec- tivism on the one hand and the charybdis of Kantian phenom- enalism on the other. It is safely to guide the philosophical ship between these dangerous cliffs that the realist appears as the pilot who knows the waters. He is able to know reality and furthermore knows it as something other than mental. The cardinal thesis for realism then is that of independ- ence. It is primarily a protest against Berkeleyan idealism but there is also another motif in realism, which although a reaction against subjectivism, cannot be attributed as hailing from a special antipathy for the Bishop. This motif arises as a repugnance on the part of some "tough-minded" in- dividuals to be asked to think in terms of selves rather than things as absolute idealism would have us do. We have noted how the romanticist attempted to reduce the world to one cate- gory, that category always standing for some attribute of self which seemed most pleasing to the philosopher who was in quest of the Absolute. The result is that before very long the romanticist had lost sight of the external world and had swal- lowed it up in his self, or if he were not quite capable of con- taining it all, the Absolute was so that it made no difference as to the virtual extinction of the external world. The realist refuses to have the real world swallowed up in any way, whether it be by a fragmentary self like his own or that of the Absolute. With a somewhat different motif, absolute idealism had landed us in a subjective world which is not much of an improvement over the Berkeleyan subjectivism. The latter had brought us there through epistemology, while the absolutist was asking us to dwell there for sentimental reasons. The realist, who believes in facing facts, revolted against this sentimentalism of the romanticist and sought a way out of the epistemological difficulty so that we might again live in a real world, one which is in no way influenced Historical Background 19 by what any particular individual happens to think about it.* Just as history has had a tendency to move through re- actions, so thought has had a tendency to move from pole to pole. Indeed it is this tendency on the part of thought so to move that has no doubt done much in shaping history's course, for the two cannot be separated from each other. The ex- cesses into which idealism had fallen caused reactions against it, both upon its absolutistic and its idealistic sides. The Hegelian dialectic has evidently been at work, for poor ideal- ism, attacked for its absolutistic platform by the pragmatist and its idealistic dogma by the realist, has now no place to lay its head in comfort, except as it subside in peace and be content to breathe no more. Yet, because of its religious im- plications, it will probably continue to find many an ardent champion and defender. Idealism must have been conscious of its ow^n defects as a method of getting around in the world, for the Hegelian dialectic plainly shows us that we cannot "ride any horse too far," that, if we do, he soon becomes tired and ceases to be himself by generating his own opposite. It evidently did not profit by the teachings of its own logic but continued its search for The Absolute so that humanity was quite forgot- ten in the quest. Although pragmatism arose as a revolt against absolutism, it has not followed the course of the Hegelian logic — perhaps because of its humanistic motif — by setting up its own absolute. The rather has it learned the truth of the very simple but equally profound maxim of Aristotle's that "Virtue is a mean between extremes." It thus hopes to prevent the world's having to progress through the march of revolutions followed by counter-revolutions. It hopes to put a stop to the operation of the Hegelian dialectic in society. It aims to show that progress among a people may come through the opposition of particulars to universals rather than through that of universals pitted against each other. In other words, intelligent progress comes through evolution and not by revolution. Science does not start with a conflict between universals but from the conflict of a particular or particulars with a universal. The former is Hegelian and is revolutionary ; the latter is pragmatic and evolutionary. Prog- 1. Of. The New RealUm, pp. 2-11. 20 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism ress is not progress if it is made at too great a cost and if it can only come through the opposition of universals, it often defeats itself, even though in the "long run" the world may be ahead. The only trouble with the "long run" is that we have to know when to stop running, otherwise we run into eternity and as already pointed out, that standpoint robs the world of all meaning and value. If we run too far, humanity will always be getting ready for a better day but no genera- tion will ever be ready to really live. This is the fallacy of wars in the interest of an abstract humanity. If the Hegelian dialectic is scientific, wars are necessary for progress, but if the pragmatic method is scientific, progress is quite possible without them. HistoiT has moved in the past according to this dialectic. It rests with us whether it shall continue so to move. The realist is quite in sympathy with the pragmatist in refusing to be swallowed up by The Absolute or any other kind of an absolute for that matter. The pragmatist has thrown absolutism out of court altogether but the realist in throwing it out of the door of his real and independent world has let it in again through the window of his subsistential enti- ties. It does not come in as a Whole but only piecemeal. The idealist lets the absolute in wholly, the realist lets him in on the installment plan while the pragmatist refuses him admit- tance at any point and even locks doors and windows to keep him out if necessary. The pragmatist abhors an absolute. Realism now stands for much more than the thesis of independence, i. 6., the existence of things apart from their being known, but just as it is possible to show that instru- mentalism is an outgrowth of the thesis of the relativity of truth from the pragmatic point of view, so is it quite possible to show that the later developments of realism have come as efforts to uphold its original thesis. The above discussion shows that pragmatism and realism did not arise in opposi- tion to one another but that they have both come as revolts against idealism, the pragmatist attacking the absolutistic plank while the realist attacks the idealistic plank of the ideal- ist's program. Since these two schools did not arise in the same controversy, they obviously cannot meet each other with the same weapons that they have employed in facing their Historical Background 21 opponents. Realism gets its meaning in opposition to subjec- tivism. The question now is : Can realism continue to use the same arguments against pragmatism that it has used in com- bating subjective idealism? If the pragmatist grants the existence of a real world apart from the field of awareness, this evidently is not the issue between pragmatism and real- ism. The present thesis holds that the pragmatist does grant the existence of a real world and that the issue between realism and pragmatism is that of meaning. Pragmatism and realism cannot get on common ground for controversial pur- poses until this issue is recognized. The realist must face the pragmatist on the issue of meaning. He must meet this issue and meet it squarely. The two following chapters will be devoted to a discus- sion of "meaning" in realism and pragmatism respectively. In the last chapter we shall give a critical comparison of the two positions respecting this issue. CHAPTER II. The Position of Meaning in Realism We have seen that reahsm arose in opposition to sub- jectivism, taking as its counter thesis that of independence. The following is an attempt to shov^ how the logical structure of the position has developed as an endeavor to prove the original contention and at the same time discover the position of meaning in the system. Kant's contention that his predecessors, as well as con- temporary metaphysicians, had been misled because they had attempted to solve the problem of being without having first inquired into the limits of human knowledge, is directly chal- lenged by the neo-realists.^ In other words, Kant maintains that we have no right to talk about metaphysics until we have first examined the possibilities of knowledge, not as a psycho- logical process but as knowledge in general, knowledge iiber- haupt Epistemology must always precede metaphysics and to attempt to discuss Being without having first asked our- selves as to what we can know, is putting the cart before the horse. To this the realist replies that philosophy has been vitiated since the time of Kant because it has given priority to epistemology and that it was not Kant*s predecessors who were in error but Kant himself. The former w^ere in error, not because they had not consciously faced Kant's problem but because their metaphysics had been vitiated by epistemology. Wherein they differed from Kant was that a knowledge of reality is possible while for him we have knowledge only of phenomena. However this may be, whether reality be know- able or unknowable, the conclusions are invalidated for meta- physics has been subordinated to epistemology. Both phe- nomenalism and idealism give preference to epistemology over metaphysics and to this the realist objects, holding that know- ing has nothing whatever to do with being, that things exist quite apart from their being known. This philosophy endeav- ors to emancipate metaphysics from epistemology which is only another way of saying, to prove the independence of being over knowing. 1. Cf. The New Realism, pp. 13-60. Meaning in Realism 23 As the first step in this emancipation of metaphysics from epistemology comes a reformation in logic. Logic is hence- forth not to be conceived of as having anything whatever to do with thinking but as something which is objective and entirely independent of thought.^ Logic is just as objective as physics and chemistry or any other science for that matter, and is to be studied empirically in the same way as one would study the sciences just mentioned. Just as mathematical principles hold regardless of whether or not the mind ever thinks them, so there are certain logical entities which sub- sist without any reference to human purposes. The relations hold between these entities whether known or unknown; knowing does not alter the character of the entities or the relations which exist between them in any way, shape or man- ner. Two plus two equals four and the Pythagorean proposi- tion in geometry are true, always have been true and always will be true. The mere discovery of a truth has nothing to do with its being. The being is there quite independent of its being known. The idealist is unable to know the truth about any one thing because he cannot know the whole truth, know the par- ticular event in its relation to the whole of reality. So inter- connected are things in their relation to each other that it is impossible to know all there is to know about any one thing because it is related to every other thing. Consequently, m order to know anything, one must know everything and since he cannot know everything, he cannot know anything. For the realist who believes it possible actually to know thmgs as they are, such a position is simply untenable. He believes that at the basis of this argument there is a fallacy so mon- strous as to discredit completely any system which accepts it, viz., that of the internality of relations.^ This theory holds that when two terms are related, the terms thus related are modified by virtue of that relation. It may be stated thus : X R Y. (Let X and Y be the terms to be related while R stands for the relation that exists between them. According to this theory when X is related to Y, both X and Y become 1. Cf. E. B. Holt: Concept of Consciousness, Ch. I ^ CnpiilriinP • The New physics from epistemology in The New Realism, pp. 51-60. 2. Cf. The New Rationalism, Ch. XXVI. 24 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism something other than they originally were by the mere fact of being related. Thus X becomes X^ and Y becomes Y^ so that it becomes impossible to know either X as X or Y as Y. Knowledge itself being a relation, it is impossible to know things as they are because the mere act of knowing has brought the object to be known into a new relation, thus altering it from what it was when an object to be known. The object as known and the object to be known are two quite different objects simply by virtue of the knowing relation involved in the one which is not found in the other. It is this "constitutive" theory of relations that has given Mr. Bradley so much trouble. He argues the impossibility of relations because one can never reach a relation that is capable of relating. Thus in order for R to relate X and Y we must have still another "R'' which is capable of relating the relation. After finding such an R we need a relation to relate this relation and so on ad infinitum,^ We may continue indefinitely but we never find a relation that really relates. The same difficulty appears when we come to account for the terms to be related. If relations modify their terms, then we should have no simple terms to be related for our terms would be made complex by means of their sustaining relations — granted that such were possible — so that it would be impossi- ble to distinguish the terms from the relations. Nor does the underlying reality- theory of relations help us any. This is another form which the theory of internal XRY. relations may take. It may be stated thus : . (X and U Y being the terms to be related while U is the underlying principle by means of which they can be related.) This theory holds that X can only act upon Y through U, i. e,, by means of some underlying principle, some common denominator which is able to mediate the relation. But it is only by means of a dogmatic assumption that such a principle is ever found; for if we start with the assumption that X can only act upon Y through U, we may then ask as to the kind of a relation which holds between U and the terms to be related. This can only be answered by means of Ui, which in turn can only 1. Cf. F. H. Bradley: Appearance and Reality, pp. 32, 33. 2. Cf. Spaulding: The New Rationalism, pp. 185-90. 4 i Meaninof in Realism 25 Q relate the X R Y to U by means of a U., and so we may con- tinue ad infinitum but never do we reach the underlying prin- ciple sought. To all this the realist says that your difficulties are due to the fact that you have started with a false theory of rela- tions. He comes forward with his theory of the externality of relations, holding that it is quite possible for terms to be related and yet be independent of each other. This principle may be formulated as follows : X [R] Y. (Again X and Y are the terms to be related while R stands for the relation.) The brackets indicate that X and Y may be related to one another but that their characters are not changed by virtue of that relation. Relations do not necessarily modify their terms but it is quite possible for terms to be related and still be independent of each other. Relatedness and independence are not incompatible vdth each other. Entities may pass in and out of relationship with one another without having their essential characteristics thereby modified. To establish his case, the realist gives as evidence for the externality of relations such instances as that found in the relations between the terms of the number series, any variable and the axioms of geometry and particularly in the case of entities which are related as logical prior and logical subse- quent.^ Thus the points of space are related to one another, but in no sense can be said to be dependent on one another in the sense of a causal dependence ; so with any number in the number series, although it occupies a definite and specific posi- tion in the serial order, it can hardly be said to be dependent on those numbers which precede or follow it. The relation of logical priority is found when that which is logically subse- quent presupposes that which is logically prior, but that which is logically prior does not necessarily imply that which is logically subsequent. Thus motion presupposes both space and time but they do not necessarily imply it ; biology presupposes both physics and chemistry but they do not necessarily imply it; and psychology presupposes biology in turn but biology does not necessarily imply psychology. In all these instances we have cases of relatedness and independence. But the most Cf. The New Rationalism, pp. 178-82. Ibid, Ch. XLIII. Sect. VIII-X. A 26 Meaning in Pragmatism and Eealism important one of all is that of the knowing relation. By means of the externality of relations it is possible to know things as they really are ; it is possible to analyze "in situ'* without the character of the object so analyzed being modified. The know- ing relation in no way changes its object. Entities may pass in and out of the knowing relation without having their essen- tial characteristics altered in the least.^ It is by means of this principle of the externality of relations that the realist is able to uphold the independence of knowing and its object. The above mentioned relation of logical priority is one of very great significance for the realist because of its meta- physical implications. It is by means of this principle that he finds the universe to be logically stratified. The entities, or universals, arrange themselves in a logical hierarchy accord- ing to their position in the "neutral mosaic."^ Those relations which are most universal and to which all entities conform, naturally occupy the substrata while those entities w^hich do not have such a universal denotation occupy the pinnacle of the structure while between the two extremes may be found entities which occupy any number of intermediate positions. Thus logic and mathematics occupy the seat of honor, they being most fundamental. Sciences which treat of space, time, motion, matter, etc., come next in the series, wuth probably a number of different combinations or degrees of generality between them. Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, ethics, politics and sociology occupy their respective places in the hierarchy. ' This relation of logical priority which determines the position of any science in the logical structure, yields a result very similar to Comte's classification of the sciences based upon the degree of positivity, this in turn being deter- mined directly as the generality and inversely as the increasing complexity of the phenomena with which the subject-matter is concerned.* Wherein the realist differs from the positivist is that he is not attempting to reduce all phenomena to mathe- matical principles as does Comte. Realism admits the exist- ence of non-natural sciences, confining the word "natural'' to 1. Cf. ITie New Rationclism, Ch. XLIV. 2. Cf. Holt: Concept of Consciousness, Ch. VHI. 3. Prof. Spaulding names the sciences in the following order: Logic, Geometry, Science of time, Kinematics, Dynamics, Pure Mechanics, Applied Mechanics, Physics, Physical Chemistry, Physiology and Psychology. (Defence of Analysis in New Real- ism, p. 205.) •Comte did not recognize as many sciences. » i . I Meaning in Realism 27 those which obey a spatial and temporal order. The higher strata of reality can never be deduced from the lower. At each higher level something new appears which is not ac- counted for by that which has preceded.* The new phenomena must be studied empirically just as those phenomena which occupy a lower level in the structure had to be determined. Thus in the issue betw^een vitalism and mechanism. Prof. Spaulding believes that realism by means of its logical hier- archy is able to show the false antithesis.^ Life is not merely a combination of physico-chemical atoms as the mechanist claims nor is it something entirely new as the vitalist claims. It is to some extent dependent on physics and chemistry in that it presupposes them but there is also something in addition for which the two aforementioned sciences do not account. The universe for the realist is truly a Platonic world, a world of universals; entities subsist. So far as knowledge is concerned there may be entities which by definition have no particular instance in the knowledge relation. Such enti- ties would belong to the null class. Thus Russell shows how it is possible to know a general proposition without being able to show a single instance of it. "All the multiplication- sums that never have been and never will be thought of by any human being deal with numbers over 1,000' is obviously a true proposition, although no instance of such a sum can ever be given. It is, therefore, perfectly possible to know that there are propositions we do not know, in spite of the fact that we can give no instance of such a proposition."^ Propositions not only contain our data but they also pos- sess meaning. Meaning is found in the relation of implica- tion which holds between them. We shall now discuss more at length the nature of propositions as presented by Holt and Russell. Anything and everything is an entity; an entity is anything which is and since everything is, it is therefore an entity. The only thing that can be said of all entities is that they are. Everything is; being is the most universal of all categories; "it denotes everything and connotes nothing." With respect to the old philosophical dualism of mind and 1. Cf. The New Realism, pp. 243 47 ; also New Rationalism, p. 386. 2. Quoted from Perry's Present Philosophical Tendencies, p. 318. •This principle is not original with realism ; it is as old as Aristotle and Wundt also makes much use of it. A V 28 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism matter, being is neutral; it is quite outside these universes of discourse.^ Sticks, stones, trees, horses, cattle, people and governments are all entities, varying only in degrees of com- plexity and kind. In order to avoid circular definitions, any system must start with a number of terms which are indefinable. These terms are just given. Such terms are "individual," "class" and "relation," which if definition be attempted, can only be stated in terms of themselves. Mr. Russell would also place the relation of implication- among these logical ultimates. Thus when you say that A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is also greater than C, you have an instance of implication. You have not defined the relation but have only given an example of it. When you try to define it, you have already stated it; it is a logical ultimate. Such terms are elementary and it is to the interests of any system to have as few of such indefinables as possible. The more complex terms may then be stated in terms of the simple ones. The relation between the simple and complex terms is that of asymmetry,^ i, 6., the inverse of the relation does not hold. Thus the complex entities may be stated in terms of the simple ones but not vice versa. When entities enter into relation with one another, they form propositions; they, together with the relations which hold between them, form the terms of the propositions. It is the relation between entities that generates propositions, while these in turn, by means of their own "logical" movement, gen- erate systems. The terms are the passive factor, the relations the active factor* and the propositions bear the same relation to a system that the relations bear to a proposition. The move- ment thus generated is neither spatial nor temporal, neither physical nor mental : it is logical.^ Once start with the propo- sitions which form the axioms and postulates of any system and the propositions generate their own movement v/hich pro- duces the system. These axioms and postulates correspond to Mr. Russell's "hard" data.^ The movement of the propositions ^ 4 ■ % Meaning in Realism 29 is strictly logical. Inference is simply a name given to the psychological process of becoming aware of the meanings of the system and the propositions composing that system. The test of any proposition's fitness to be a member of a certain system is its consistency with the other propositions of the system. To the realist the universe is serial in character. Each of the qualities which a thing possesses may be reduced to its own series.^ Thus we have a color, an auditory, a temperature, a magnitude series, etc. Any object at any particular moment is simply the resultant of its intersecting series. In this way the world is "de-thingized" and any object is the resultant of the series which happen to be acting upon it for the time being. The entities arrange themselves in a serial order. It is this serial order that generates the movement referred to as logical. Consciousness, too, is such a series. It is the sum total of objects to which the organism is responding at any given moment.2 Whether we state it in terms of a relation,^ a dimension,* as a form of energy,^ or as a cross-section of the environment,^ it occupies a definite position in the neutral hierarchy just as any other entity. Consciousness is simply an awareness of the environment to which an organism is responding. Entities pass in and out of this relation just as they pass in and out of any other relation. When in this relation they are known. The relation itself is quite accidental and is by no means a fundamental one. Knowing is simply one relation which an entity may have. The entity is the same when known as when unknown ; knowing makes no difference in its essential characteristics. Consciousness is that relation which takes place when the relationship between series pro- duces that state known as awareness. The foregoing are some of the most substantial pillars which realism employs in erecting its temple of independence. We have dwelt at length upon them in order to show their relation to the original thesis. Merely to have stated that this is the cardinal thesis of realism would hardly have been suff i- 1. Cf . Holt : Concept of Consciousness, pp. 1-37. 2. Cf. Russell: Principles of Mathematics, pp. 11, 3S. 8. Cf. Concept of Consciousness, p. 10. 4. Ibid, p. 6. 5. Ibid, p. 18. 6. Cf. Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. 77 ft. 1. Cf. Ibid. p. 88 flF. ; also The New Rationalism, pp. 156 flf. ; 169 ff. 2. Cf. Holt: Concept of Consciousness, Ch. IX. 5. Cf. Woodbridge in Carman Memorial Volume. 4. Cf. Spaulding : The New Rationalism, pp. 470-486. B. Cf. Montaprue in Columbia Commemorative Volume to William Jazoee. 6. Cf . Holt : Concept of Consciousness. •2f 30 Meaning in Praprmatisin and Realism cient and much less would it hav3 been convincing. It is indeed a magnificent logical structure that marks the last rest- ing place of subjective idealism; it is also a most handsome monument to Bishop Berkeley's genius. The pragmatist, how- ever, refuses to be crushed by the weight of this splendid logi- cal edifice and seriously objects to being buried alongside of the Bishop. And it is quite apparent that the pragmatist is still very much alive for we are hearing vehement protests against such a burial on the grounds that the structure has not fallen on his shoulders for the realist, alas ! in his endeavor to refute subjectivism has quite overlooked the importance of meaning and it is not a world of mere existence in which the pragmatist is interested but one of meaning. Unless the realist can defend his position at the point of meaning the pragmatist cannot go with him. Meanings, too, must be quite independent of human purposes and problems. We shall now see how the realist attempts to defend his position at this point. The mind of course has no part to play in the determin- ing of meanings if the realist is consistent. This is exactly what he attempts to establish. The relations hold between entities and propositions regardless of whether or not they ever come into the knowing relation. The meanings are just there, there to be discovered when one observes them. The mind is a spectator which simply beholds the implications of propositions; propositions are entirely objective and imply one another through their own logical movement. The mind is purely passive; it simply becomes aware of the movement of the system. Mr. Russell finds it wholly as passive in infer- ence as in an ordinary act of perception.^ Propositions imply one another. Implication is a relation which holds between propositions. Inference is simply the psychological process of becoming aware of the implications which hold between propositions. Since for Russell, all induction is a form of deduction because the principle of induction itself presupposes deduction, all inference is deductive.^ Mr. Russell later sees the diflficulty with this spectator attitude toward life and con- fesses that judgment cannot simply be "the apprehension of I* Meanin«: in Realism 31 ' %♦ a fact" for this would give no account of error.^ He therefore makes it consist of a relation of at least three terms, a point which we shall discuss later. It is only when we come to truth and error that this mere apprehending relation is openly dis- carded by Russell although some inconsistent statements have paved the way for its graceful dismissal. Both Montague and Russell are forced to alternate between two contradictory posi- tions^ but refuse to recognize the insufficiency of the role of the spectator. Prof. Perry is not a good realist at this point for he quite frankly admits that both meaning and value are types of dependent relations.'- Prof. Woodbridge's realism also fails him here for he holds that consciousness is a relation of meaning. '• Even Mr. Russell is now not quite so sure as he once was that "good and bad are properties of things just as round and square are."* Both Russell and Spaulding find the old logic very inade- quate because it fails to take account of relations other than a subject-predicate kind. The latter contends that it was developed from the Greek conception of thing' and conse- quently takes into account only such relations as one gets from the substance-attribute relation. It, therefore, needs to be supplemented by the relations which a logoic built around the conception of order can supply. Relations so considered may be classified as to symmetry, transitivity and as to the number of terms employed in the relation.^ The examples of the implicative situation cited by Prof. Spaulding are of these types. Thus, A is father of B implies that B is child of A. (One cannot here say "son-of" for the implication may also be "daughter-of," the relation being of the "one-many" type.) If A is to the left of B then B must be to the right of A. The relation here involved is one of asymmetry, not being identical with its inverse. A is similar to B implies that B is similar to A. Here we have an instance in which the relation involved in the implication is symmetrical as we would also have in the case of equality. 1. Principles of Mathematictf, p. 88. 2. Of. Problema of Philosophy, Ch. VI. • r 1. Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. 58. 2. Of. A Realistic Theory of Independence in The New Realism, pp. 140-44. 3. Cf. Carman Memorial Volume. 4. Preface to Mysticism and Logic. 5. Cf. The New Rationalism, pp. 29-36. a. Cf. Royce's essay in Enc. Phil. Sc. Vol. H, Sec. 2. ^ 32 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism Any fact may express itself through a proposition. When anything has a certain quality or a certain relation it is a fact. The fact is objective and independent of any assertion made about it. If I say that "the book is red" the assertion involves the attributing of a certain quality to a certain object. Wheth- er or not the book has this quality is a fact which has nothing to do with my judgment in regard to it. Mr. Russell says : "Given any fact, there is an assertion which expresses the fact. The fact itself is objective, and independent of our thought or opinion about it; but the assertion is somethmg which involves thought, and may be either true or false. ... A form of words* which must be either true or false I shall call a proposition. Thus a proposition is the same as v^hat may significantly be asserted or denied. A proposition which expresses what we have called a fact, i. 6., which when asserted, asserts that a certain thing has a certain quality, or that cer- tain things have a certain relation, will be called an atomic proposition."^ Besides the "atomic" we also have "molecular" and "gen- eral" propositions. It is the molecular type in which we are primarily interested as it is this type that gives rise to the rela- tion of implication, thus making inference possible. In spite of symbolic logic^s claims for newness, this molecular type of proposition seems only a new way of saying "hypothetical," while our so-called "atomic" propositions are only a new way for saying "categorical." The general proposition which is the most perfect because of its purely "formal" character, turns out to be our old friend the syllogism wearing a new coat. It may be stated as follows : "If anything has a certain property, and whatever has this property has a certain other property, then the thing in question has the other property."^ This is a highly general proposition and is purely formal in character. The interesting thing about it is that even in the syllogism we find the relations both of asymmetry and transi- tivity, for the discovery of which the symbolic logician takes great pride in his originality. If knowledge is to be gained by the kind of inference that 1. Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. 62. 2. Ibid, p. B7. *It«Iic8 mine. Meaning in Realism 33 is represented in our molecular propositions, then we may as well give up in despair. Suppose I tell you that if I study I shall have my lesson. From this how are you to know whether or not I am going to have my lesson. By the impli- cation, of course, says Mr. Russell. It does not inform you as to whether or not I am going to study, but if I do study, I shall have my lesson. The form is perfect and if you know the proposition and its logical movement you have all the infor- mation that is needed provided I do my part and study my lesson. But how does this compare with what may actually happen? Perhaps I have tried to deceive you, or granted my truthfulness, the lesson may be more difficult than expected and despite special effort on my part it is not mastered. The illustration simply shows the futility of inference in leading to truth when the implication is purely formal. Propositions constitute data as well as meaning for the realist. Mr. Russell classifies data as to their logical and psychological primitive or derivative character. The classes may take any possible combinations such as those data which are psychologically primitive but logically derivative or vice versa, etc.^ A primitive belief, either logical or psychological, is one which we hold independent of other beliefs ; it does not rest for its validity upon the acceptance or rejection of some other belief. Thus we believe that the things we see in per- ception do not depend upon our seeing them for their existence, but that they exist whether or not we happen to be looking at them. This belief is logically primitive in that it is not derived from any other belief but is psychologically derivative in that it depends upon previously having had experiences which justify the belief. Contrawise, the things of which we are not aware we believe to exist not because of previous experience and other beliefs. Hence it is a psychologically primitive belief. "Our data are now primarily the facts of sense (i e,, of our own sense-data) and the laws of logic."^ It is hardly correct to speak of implication and inference at one end of the process and truth and error at the other for there seems to be no process involved in symbolic logic. 1 Cf. Scientific Method In Philooophy, p. M ff. 2! Cf. Ibid, pp. 67-72. 3 Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. 72. .^leaning in Pragmatism and Realism Knowledge is simply a matter of beholding propositions and these propositions are either true or false. How it is possi- ble for such a thing as a false proposition to be exhibited is for most of us a mystery, but the riBalist has a method of accounting for error. It is a method but as to how well it succeeds we shall judge later. One of the ways in which the realist accounts for error is well illustrated by Dr. Montague's "epistemological trian- gle.''^ In this triangle we have (1) the actual existing external object, (2) the cerebral state itself and (3) the object per- ceived or apprehended. Error may arise in either of two ways. It may be due to the energy arising from the object being dis- torted either at the physical or psychical medium of trans- mission. The former gives rise to errors of perception while the latter gives rise to those of inference.^ These two types of error are not mutually exclusive for it makes little differ- ence whether we say that the senses have reported incorrectly, or whether we infer a wrong relation in the spatio-temporal- qualitative order. In either case the error is real and object- ive. The classic illustrations of the rails appearing to con- verge at a distance as one looks up the track and the straight stick appearing as bent when thrust obliquely into water and reflected through that medium are cases in point. These illusions are real and have just as much validity as a true per- ception. When the stick appears bent the relational complex which is observed is a real complex and is not merely a sub- jective illusion; it is quite as objective as when the same stick appears to be straight when in some other relation. Just as there are two ways in which error may arise, so there are two ways by which truth may occur. It may be due either to a correct presentation of the object so that the object as known corresponds with the object to be known, or to the corrective function of inference upon a distorted complex so that the object is known as it really is. When an object is perceived as it really is the energy at the third angle of the triangle is the same as that at the first ; it has not been modi- fied by the transmitting media. In the case where the rails are known to be parallel, inference has corrected the error 1 Cf. A Realistic Theory of Truth and Error in The New Realism, p. 286. 2. Cf*. Ibid. p. 289 ff. ^leanini? in Realism 35 that v/ould otherwise have been inevitable had the object been judged by its visual appearance. This is all very well but how could such a passive psychological process as infer- ence ever perform a corrective function? It will be remem- bered that inference is simply a matter of becoming aware of obiective implications. Here Doctor Montague is evidently introducing a nevv^ conception of inference. Furthermore, he must have forgotten that in the knowing process we have an instance of the externality of relations. This being the case, how is it possible for the spatio-temporal-qualitative order to be modified at either medium of our epistemological triangle? Objects should ahvays be presented as they are if the theory of external relations is to hold universally of the knowing process. In order to account for error the realist has evidently abandoned one of his favorite offsprings, the theory of the externality of the knowledge relation. Prof. Holt would make contradiction the essential char- acteristic of error. He takes particular pains to point out that contradictions appear in propositions as over against the conception of a contradiction in terms. Following Russell, he holds that the latter is "either false or meaningless."^ In order to have a contradiction in terms, bei7ig must be denied but such a denial is meaningless for everything is. When propositions contradict each other we have error. The result of this conception is that error seems to be about all there is in the world for "Nature is a seething chaos of contra- diction." "All collisions between bodies, all interference between- energies, all processes of warming and cooling, of electrically charging and discharging, of starting and stopping, of com- bining and separating, are processes of vv^hich one undoes the other. And they cannot be defined by the scientist except in propositions which manifestly contradict one another. All nature is so full of these mutually negative processes that we are moved to admiration when a few forces co-operate long enough to form what we call an organism; and even then decay sets in forthwith." How absurd to speak of such contradictions as cases of error ! Yet this is what the logic demands. The natural neces- 1, Concept of Consciousness, pp. 262, 8. 2. Ibid, p. 275. 36 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism sity of the physical world, when generalized, becomes the logical necessity of the neutral realm. Contradictory proposi- tions are the occasion for error. These appear in the objective world as well as in the subjective; error is not merely sub- jective. Objective error is real for contradictory propositions appear in the world of nature. Prof. Holt recognizes both subjective and objective error but seems partial to the neutral order.^ Prof. Spaulding finds no difficulty in accounting for error. He disposes of the problem — which to him is not a problem at all of course — by relegating it to the world of sub- sistence.2 By placing error in this realm it may still be just as real and just as objective as one could possibly desire to have it. In the case of error the person judging has merely mistaken a subsistent for an existent Both subsistents and existents are equally real.' All entities subsist whereas some only exist. Some only exist at certain times and certain places while there are others which may never attain the specific cor- relation which is characteristic of existent entities. An exam- ple of the latter would be that of the "null class," a class which has no particular instance. The illustration cited above from Russell is such an example. If a man should mistake his friend for a post through the dense fog and he were very anxious to see his friend at this particular time, it would indeed be consoling to him to know that the post merely sub- sisted in this particular relational situation whereas his friend had actually been an existent in the complex. Both the friend and the post are equally real but the post only subsisted while the friend existed. Prof. Spaulding says : "Between the knowing of that state of affairs which the theory* describes and the (subsistential) entities of which this state of affairs holds, there is a relation of correspondence. If, now, one takes these entities to be also existential, and they are not, one is in error. On the other hand, if they are existential, then there is not only a correspondence between the knowing process and the subsistents, but also between the subsistents and the existents, as well as between the existents ^ ^ Meaning in Realism 37 1. Cf. Concept of ConsciousneBB, Ch. Xm. 2. Cf. The New Rationalism, p. 293 ff. ; p. 429 ; p. 876 ff. 8. Cf. Ibid, p. 494. i. Ibid. p. 296. and the knowing. But, because that which one takes to exist does not exist, is no ground for making it subjective. Rather, if such an entity finds its place in a consistent and implicative theory, then, although not existential, it is subsistential, and as objective as any existential entity.*' Mr. Russell, although he finds it not at all logically refut- able to uphold the position of objective falsehood, prefers not to do so if he can possibly avoid it and has rather an ingenious way of solving the problem. He grasps the problem at its roots when he makes an analysis of the kind of relation pre- sented by every judgmental situation.^ The difficulty with previous correspondence theories has been that they have conceived of judgment as a two term relation, whereas the fact of the matter is that it is always at least a three term relation, consisting in a relation of the mind to several other terms. If all judgments were true there would be no diffi- culty in conceiving of it as a two term relation, viz., that of a mind apprehending a fact. But since all judgments are not true, we must either consider judgment a relation of more than two terms or admit the possibility of objective false- hoods. We have seen that Professors Holt, Spaulding and Montague have chosen the latter alternative but Mr. Russell gives quite a different statement. Without judgments and beliefs there would be no such thing as truth and error and yet the truth of a proposition is in no sense dependent upon a judgment in regard to it. In the one case, truth and falsity are properties of belief and in the other they are properties of propositions. If A kills B because of C the relation holds whether or not there is a judgment in regard to it. Here we have a proposition that is either true or false. Your judgment or my judgment or anybody else's judgment does not affect the truth of the proposition either one way or the other. The complex of A's killing B because of C is a fact which simply is. When a per- son judges this relational complex so that the same relation expressed in the judgment actually holds between the terms of the proposition judged, the judgment is a true one; if the relation judged does not hold between the terms, the judg- ment is false. Mr. Russell's own statement is as follows: 1. Cf. Philosophieal Essays, Essay VIL 38 Meaniim" in Praa*matisin and Realism **Every judgment is a relation of the mind to several objects, one of which is a relation; the judgment is true when the relation which is one of the objects relates the other objects, otherwise it is false/'^ And again, '^Judgment is a relation of the mind to several other terms ; when these other terms have inter se sl "corresponding" relation, the judgment is true; when not, it is false."- Thus, in the above statement if I judge that A killed C because of B my judgment is false because there is not a correspondence of the relation ^'killed" with that which holds in the terms of the proposition judged. We have seen that the theory of external relations, Pla- tonic realism which gives a dual v/orld of subsistence and existence, epistemological monism whereby it is possible for the object itself to be directly presented in an act of knowledge and the various statements of consciousness, whether it be that of the relational, the dimensional or the energistic type, are all tools by means of which the realist defends his original thesis of the independence of being and knowing. The posi- tion holds as over against Berkeleyan idealism. Whether or not the same may be said for it v/hen meanings are involved is quite another question and one which we shall discuss at another point. The realist has, however, attempted to defend his position at this point in the manner already indicated. The meanings, both in the form of implication and truth, are simply there for one who will look and behold them. Truth is merely a matter of becoming aware of the right implica- tions which hold between propositions while error is failure to apprehend successfully the correct relations between such propositions. The foregoing is a statement of the general realistic posi- tion in regard to meaning. Let us now pass on to a similar study of the pragmatic conception of meaning. 1. Philosophical Essays, p. 181. 2. Ibid. p. 178. * 4 > CHAPTER III. Pragmatism and Meaning Coming now to pragmatism, the center of interest is shifted somewhat from that which we noted in the previous chapter. Instead of attending so much to the scenery, we are now primarily interested in the actors themselves. Man is no longer viewed as a spectator watching the events of an alien world but is himself a participant in those events. The stage is not already constructed for him but he is himself constantly building the stage so that it better serves his pur- poses, ministers to his needs and satisfies his interests and desires. We had occasion to note in our first chapter that in its early days, pragmatism concerned itself with combating vari- ous species of absolutism, particularly centering its polemic about the truth question. The pragmatist, priding himself upon his interest in humanity, quite rightly noted that the ralson d'etre for any philosophy ultimately rests upon its ability to serve human beings by enabling them to discriminate the true from the false ; translated into ethical terms, it must give them a working criterion for distinguishing the right from the wrong. This, absolute idealism had failed to do and it was the pragmatist who summoned the representatives of this philosophy to court. In that chapter it was also pointed out that the pragmatist faced his opponents by upholding the thesis of "the relativity of truth." That instrumentalism, which now more nearly represents the pragmatic position, is an outgrowth of the controversy and is the main tool which the pragmatist has employed in defending his counter-thesis, we are now about to establish. So long as we are interested in the "Whole of Reality" and do not care about the meaning of the world in which we live, we can get along very nicely with absolute truths and absolute goods, but the minute we attempt to put any content into these values, the abstract ideal of Truth proves only an empty husk in which we may dwell, provided we wish to die before our bodily processes cease ; but if we want to live we 40 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism cannot dwell in such a husk but must come out into the world of meanings, of happenings where things are taking place. Whether we like it or no, constituted as we are, we are com- pelled to live in the latter kind of world. If our philosophy is to justify itself, it must enable us to get around in the kind of a world in which we live; it must apply to our world, a world of change and of happenings and not to some fixed and ready-made, completed, ideal world. All this the pragmatist sees and consequently shapes his philosophy accordingly. He offers us a statement of truth that will apply to our world. He readily sees that if truth is to have any meaning, it can only be as it is related to some human purpose or enterprise. Taken by itself it is only so much verbiage; when we find it it is always connected with some problem of some particular individual or individuals. It is not something that is floating around in the air for which we may grab as we would for a piece of bread when hungry, but represents the status of a logical situation. Truth and falsity are relative to conditions and circumstances, these being determined by the needs of the problem under investi- gation. When we examine the nature of truth we find that it is not a finished product but that it always appears as it is related to a given situation ; we never find The Truth but meet with specific truths in the course of our experience. Truths are continually being made with the growth and diversifica- tion of experience. If then, says the pragmatist, we want to know when a thing is true and when false, we must place it in experience, must find out what kind of experience we have when we designate certain things as true and others false. It is here that his instrumentalism comes in, for in the process of analysis, we find that the distinction between true and false arises when we recognize the instrumental character of our thinking. We may search for Absolute Truth and take delight in an independent thought but the minute we attempt to put any meaning into our terms, we find that truth is specific and that thinking is instrumental; it is adaptive and purposeful and aids us in perfecting a more satisfactory adjustment between ourselves and our environment. Pragmatism and Meaning 41 It is one thing to show that a thing may be true in one situation and false in another or that a certain line of conduct may be right in a given situation and wrong in another and reject absolutism upon this basis; but it is quite another thing to point out the reasons for its being thus. True enough, we do refer to the problem in hand when we demonstrate the facts but it is still another step to arrive at the instrumental character of thought. When we meet with concrete instances of conduct which we call "right" or see facts which we call "true," these adjectives always apply to situations where human activity is involved. The natural thing to do would be to connect these adjectives with situations in which human purposes are involved but instead the absolutist asks us to cling to a truth that is just given and a thought that just thinks. We cannot apply it in life but there still is a Truth that is just true and a thought an sich whose business it is to match an external and independent world. Once rec- ognize the adaptive character of consciousness and the instru- mental nature of thought and we shall no longer stand in need of absolute truths and absolute rights. These the prag- matist frankly admits and with such recognition, we shall now see how he is able to introduce meaning into his world. We start with an organism that is adjusting itself to an environment; nor is it purely a matter of adjusting itself but is equally a matter of adjusting the environment to itself. The principle works both ways; there is a constant interac- tion between organism and environment. In the course of this process difficulties arise ;^ the organism is obstructed in its activity; its desires have not been fulfilled satisfactorily. Consequently if action is to continue the situation must be reconstructed, either to enable it to continue in the line in which it has been inhibited or to turn it into an equally desir- able channel, one which will satisfy the needs of the organism. It may be food, shelter or clothing that is demanded and if these are not forthcoming from the environment at hand, it is up to the individual to reconstruct the situation in such manner that the desire may be satisfied. Could all desires be satisfied without effort on our part, we should be living in a 1 Cf Dewey "Refl'-x Arc Conquest in Psychology." Psych. P.ev. Vol. III. p. 357; * also Journal of Phil.. Psych, and Sc. Methods, Vol. IV. pp. 664 ff. 42 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism world in which individuals respond directly to presented stimuli and one in which thinking as such would not take place. So long as the method of responding directly to stimuli is effective, there is no occasion for thinking. It is because this method often brings undesirable consequences that thought is provoked in order that more satisfactory results may be obtained in the future. This is only another way of saying that "necessity is the mother of invention." As the rudimentary desires are satisfied, either by instinct or through the mediation of thought, our interests become broader and our desires increase so that if our needs are all to be satisfied, intelligence must again intervene. At each stage of the process thought becomes free to reconstruct its own ends ; wants that were once a luxury become necessities. Thus railroads, tele- graphs, telephones, electric lights, steam heat, etc., were all once luxuries but have now become necessities. The term "practical'* interest or "practical" need is therefore relative to individual development and social culture. When the prag- matist maintains that reflection grows out of a "practical" situation he does not mean that it is purely a matter of secur- ing bread and butter as so many have interpreted him to mean. That necessity is the mother of invention is only half of the story; it is equally as true that "invention is the mother of necessity." Whatever else the nature of the practical situation in w^hich thinking arises may be, it is always a problematic situa- tion.^ By such a situation we mean one in which action, has been inhibited and desire cannot be satisfied directly but only by means of a reconstruction of the situation ; it is a situation that involves wants. The meaning is ambiguous so that the individual does not know what line of conduct will prove most fruitful in bringing about the desired reconstruction. The data present conflicting meanings. If the meaning of the facts were perfectly obvious, we should have no problem at all but should react directly to the stimulus presented. It is the conflict of meanings, the doubt as to what course is most wise to pursue that gives rise to the problem. The problem always involves the experience of an indi- vidual; it arises in his experience.- It is his interest, his 1. Of. Dewey : Essays in Experimental Logic, Ch. III. 2, Of. G. H. Mead: Scientific Method and Individual Thinker in Creative Intelligence. ^ ^p ' Pragmatism and Meaning 43 desire, his experience that calls for a reconstruction of the situation. Other individuals may or may not have had a simi- lar experience. This does not alter the fact that the present situation — the one in which the problem appears — involves his experience. Just what the experience means he does not know; it is an anomaly for him. It therefore commands his attention that he may be able to interpret it properly. If he can find out v/hat it means this time, he will have more data from which he may infer probable consequences in future situ- ations or may be of assistance to others in similar situations. The experience is his ; it is his own private problem. Although the problem is his it is also a social matter. It had its birth urder social conditions for the individual in whose experience it has appeared, is not an isolated individual but is a social individual. He is living in a society and it was out of this social environment that the problem arose. The thought that he employs for the solution of the problem is social in charac- ter; he is dependent upon society for many of his meanings and interpretations. The problem, although private, is not private in the sense of belonging to a purely private and entirely independent individual. It is private in the sense that it is his but he himself is a part of society. The individual may go to others for its solution but the problem itself is a product of the individual's experience. The problem arises within the experience of the individual but his experience is a social experience. It is the unique character of the experience in v/hich the individual figures that enables us to account for the exception, and it is the exception in which modern science is primarily interested. Here we find a striking difference between modern and ancient science. The traditional logic had no place for the exception. It was treated as a "freak" or an anomaly in nature and was a fit subject of interest only as a curiosity. The exception afforded difficulties with the Aristotelian scheme of things; it could not comfortably be placed under a universal and consequently had no recognized standing am.ong respectable thinkers. The present-day scientist is not only tolerant of exceptions but takes great delight in their discovery. He gives them a warm welcome and feels quite at home while in their company. In short, it is the exception u Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism from which modern science gets its cue; science starts with the exception. It is the exception that sets the problem and science thrives on problems. The problem does not present an absolutely new experi- ence. If it did, there would be no meaning whatever in the experience, and as such, it would not constitute a problem. It might then be a puzzle but not a problem. The exception is not entirely new; it is novel, i. 6., it presents something that is old together with something that is new. It is relatively new but not wholly so. The old saying that "there is nothing new under the sun" is true or false according to the way in which we interpret the word "new." If we mean by it that nothing new ever happens, it is false, but if we mean that the new is never entirely new it is quite true. This is quite in ac- cordance with the demands of a problem which require a con- flict in the meanings of the data. An absolutely new experi- ence would not fulfill this requirement; it would not present a conflict of meanings but would afford no meaning at all; it would be meaningless. A correct statement of the nature of a problem enables us to solve the old Socratic mystery of how it is possible to know anything new. Socrates argued that it would be impos- sible to know anything new because we either would know it or we would not know it; if we knew it, it would not be new, while, if we did not know it, we should have no way of knowing it and consequently could not know it. This paradoxical situa- tion forced Plato to resort to his eternal ideas of which we had knowledge in some previous existence and which we may re-cognize in this world as they embody themselves in the par- ticulars of sense and individual experiences. Plato could not account for knowledge upon any other basis, but had he recog- nized the problematic character of knowledge, the difficulty would have disappeared and he would not have had to resort to his archetypal ideas in order to account for the possibility of knowledge. Taking Socrates' own statement of the case, the situation is even more hopeless than he had pictured it for upon that basis it not only would be impossible to know anything new but would be equally impossible to have any kind of knowledge, Pragmatism and Meaning 45 for it would be quite impossible for knowledge to get a start in the first place. We should have to endow our individuals with some knowledge, otherwise they would never know anything. But our troubles vanish when we recognize the fact that every knowing situation involves both knowledge and ignorance; there is something of the old and something of the new in- volved. Some facts are not questioned while the meaning of others is doubtful. It is this doubtful character of the situa- tion that renders it a knowledge situation; every knowledge situation is therefore a problematic situation; its meaning is ambiguous ; it involves both the old and the new, the experi- enced and the novel. This statement of the problem not only enables us to account for new knowledge (it is hardly correct to use the term for knowledge always involves something of the new element in it) , but also enables us to show how knowl- edge gets started. It does not involve previous knowledge but it does involve previous experience. Knowledge presupposes experience but experience does not necessarily involve knowl- edge. Knowledge arises out of a conflict in experience, the conflict being eliminated through the mediation of intelligence. Experience is a broader term than knowledge. Not all experi- ence contains knowledge but all knowledge does involve experi- ence. This view of the relationship between knowledge and experience is consistent with a psychological account of knowl- edge. The "big, blooming, buzzing confusion" which the in- fant experiences does not afford meaning but it is out of just such experiences that knowledge evolves. Angell thinks that even this classic statement of James' gives the infant credit for a greater power of discrimination than he deserves. The exception, which is the source of the conflict, calls for interpretation; its meaning must be discovered in order that action may continue. It can only be interpreted in the light of previous experience. This is the reason that an abso- lutely new experience is unintelligible. The individual has no clue as to the proper interpretation. The experience remains an enigma until he is able to bring something out of his experience to bear upon the situation. The experiences which he summons for this purpose constitute the data for his problem. They offer suggestions as to possible meanings. The pain may be a trivial matter or it may be something that t t 46 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism demands expert treatment at once. The individual consults a physician for he has at his command a more specialized experience. His diagnosis stands a greater possibility of being correct. He pronounces it an attack of appendicitis. The meaning for the physician is apparent whereas for the patient it was ambiguous. But it has not always been clear to the physician — and for some it is not so yet — but has only become so by means of careful inquiry. Suppose that the case were not so easily diagnosed and that it constituted an excep- tion in the experience of the physician. He might analyze it to his best ability or consult one whose experience is broader and who consequently has more data for a more satisfactory diagnosis. If the proper inferences are drawn, and the patient recovers, the case is then confirmatory evidence of a correct diagnosis. It may be used as data for the diagnoses of similar cases in the future. The distinction between data and meaning is a functional one; it is due to the temporal character of the judgment.^ A judgment is not a static proposition; it is an active process. ("Active*' is superfluous for all processes are active.) A judgment is a living affair. It does not represent a dead situation but is made with reference to future conduct. A dead judgment is no judgment at all. All judgments are alive ; they represent an incomplete situation ;-' they stand for a goal not yet attained. There is something at stake in a judg- ment; there is a problem to be solved, an end to be achieved, an ideal as yet unrealized. It is this doubtful element in the judgment that involves a temporal process. Were judg- ment a mere observation, a ready-made perception, the tem- poral element would not be necessary. But judgment is not perception; a judgment may start with a perception but neither the act of perceiving nor the thing perceived consti- tutes the judgment. Perceptions form the data, the subject of the judgment but do not constitute a judgment. If we knew the meaning of a percept, we should not judge about it; we should act with reference to it. It is the doubtful meaning that makes a judgment a temporal process. The data set the problem while the meaning offers a solu- 1. Of. Dewey : Essays in Experimental Logic, pages 1 to 8. 2. Cf. Essays in Experimental Logic, p. 337 ff. Pragmatism and Meaning 47 I «« ( . «( tion; the former form the subject, the latter the predicate of any judgment. The data represent that part of the situ- ation which is not questioned while the predicate stands for the doubtful part of the situation. In every judgmental situ- ation there are certain facts v/hich are not questioned and certain facts which are questioned. (Here again, it is not technically correct to speak of "facts being questioned.*') A fact which is questioned is no longer a fact; it becomes a meaning. In order for a fact to be a fact its meaning must not be questioned. A fact is a fact only when it functions as such, L e., when its meaning is not questioned.^ the pain is a fact. As such it is not questioned; it is a datum and con- stitutes the subject of a judgment about the fact. Its trivial- ity or its severity are possible meanings ; they are hypotheses foiTaed with reference to future action concerning the pain. They stand for the doubtful or problematic character of the situation, are meanings and form the predicate of a judgment. The facts are not just given; they represent the results of previous inquiries. They are data which may be brought to bear upon a given situation. They are past experiences which seem most significant for purposes of inference; they suggest meanings. The meanings are not fixed, absolute entities. They are suggestions or ideas, hypotheses upon v/hich v/e may act. They point toward the completed situation; they indicate a line of action. When a meaning is verified it is no longer a meaning. It becomics a fact and remains in that status until again questioned and is proved false. Facts become ideas and ideas become facts. A fact is not alv/ays a fact, neither is an idea always an idea. A thing is either fact or idea ac- cording to the manner in v^^hich it functions in a judgment. The process of judging involves a constant oscillation between fact and idea or data and meaning. This is a process through Vv^hich reality is being made. Our world is constantly being reconstructed by means of the judging process. The process of going from data to meaning and back to data again, the process which constitutes a complete act of thought, is not the only way of reshaping the world and reorganizing society. It is the most effective way; it is the intelligent method for progress. 1. Of. Essays in Experimental Logic, Ch. IV. 48 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism An idea is a meaning; it is not an image of reality but a sign for the bringing about of a reality. It is not a picture of a finished situation but an indicator of a future experience. It is a guide, an index to a line of conduct which will prove most fruitful in reconstructing a given situation. The hypothesis^ is formed with reference to the solution of the problem. It is that idea which seems most significant, which appears as having the greatest probability of bringing about the desired situation. The hypothesis is that meaning that can give the best account of itself, has most in its favor and looks best. It is one that past experience leads one to think may be trusted; it not only stands square on the books but has a balance in its favor. The idea that becomes the hypothesis can get credit ; it has a respectable standing in the community which constitutes our problematic situation. A meaning is a sign, an index ; it points toward that which we should expect to find should we act upon its suggestion. The logical value of an idea is its carrying power, i. e, its ability to lead to a desirable conclusion. When an idea proper- ly performs this function, it is called a "true" idea. It is true because it does the work that it was intended to do. When it fails as a guide, it is false; it will not produce the conse- quences which the situation demands for a satisfactory solu- tion. Ideas, as such, are neither true nor false ; they become such according to the way they work within a given situation. When we use such terms as "satisfy," "work," "fulfill de- sires," "meet a need," "bring us what we want," etc., we must bear in mind that they are always with reference to the prob- lem at hand. It is not a question as to whether or not they bring a certain amount of emotional satisfaction or bring you what you might like to have. Thus if you are ill and learn that you have an incurable disease, there is nothing very satisfy- ing about it unless you happen to be one of those who takes great delight in being ill. Your problem was not that of finding something satisfying in general but that of learning the nature of your illness. The disease, no matter how painful it may be to you, satisfies the demands of the problem. It is in this sense that an idea is true and not in some silly, senti- 1. Cf. ibid. Ch. VIH. Pragmatism and Meaning 49 mental satisfaction as some of the critics of pragmatism have claimed. A recent international situation presents an illustration of the manner in which ideas work. The peace treaty was a hypothesis. Judging by the severity of its exactions, it was formulated for the purpose of crushing Germany. If this had been the aim of the war, such a treaty might have been desirable. If carried out it probably would lead to that end. On the other hand, if our aim was to bring about a moral standard among nations and effect a treaty that would as- sure us of a permanent peace, its desirability is more doubt- ful. The desirability of the treaty, the truth or falsity of the hypotheses involved in it depended upon whether or not we wished to continue to live in a nationalistic jungle or whether we preferred to move on to a civilized international- ism. If we desired peace but acted upon some of the hypo- theses expressed in the treaty, the ideas were likely to prove false. Past experience should have told us that we had not selected significant ideas for our purpose. If we wanted re- venge the teims were very satisfying but if we were working for a new era, they were not the ones we should have wanted. Those who v/ere moved by hatred might have been willing to admit that less stringent demands would have been better for bringing about an effective League of Nations and yet not have found quite the amount of emotional satisfaction that they did in the actual terms. Their amount of mere emotional satisfaction would have depended upon their desire for re- venge on the one hand and their enthusiasm for a new state of affairs on the other. It would not have affected the truth or falsity of the ideas expressed in the treaty in the least. Their truth or falsity was with reference to their ability to lead to a hettei* situation, provided that was what he wanted. When an hypothesis is acted upon and brings you what you want, it is no longer an idea but becomes a fact. In every problematic situation our meanings are ambiguous. There is an hypothesis on trial, a meaning that is doubtful, a fact that is questioned. If this were not the case we should have no problem at all but should simply be living in a world and con- duct would take place without thinking. As Prof. Mead hap- pily expressed it . "We should lose our minds if it were not 50 Meanine: in Pragmatism and Eealism for our problems." Mind appears when there is a problem to be solved.^ Those who are about to give up in despair because of their problems may find some consolation in this viewpoint. A practical illustration is familiar to all. We need only observe one who has lost all ambition and who is perfectly satisfied with his lot and existence. He has no aspirations and consequently no problems to be solved ; he has no occasion for thinking. His brain is proportionately small — so far as appearances are concerned at any rate and appearance seems to be worth more than reality in this case. Physiologically the brain may be of normal size but unless it functions in the inferential capacity, we are quite right in saying that "he has no mind."* In order for a mind to be a mind it must func- tion as such; it must infer meanings; it must respond to problematic situations. With a number of ideas before us, our problem becomes that of selecting or finding out what meanings are most signifi- cant for our purpose. The problem itself suggests the mean- ings; the purpose of the individual in whose experience the problem arises will determine what ideas will be suggested.^ If we all had the same experiences, cei-tain meanings would be no more significant to one than to another. It is because our experience is limited that we consult a physician or seek ad- vice from the specialist. These people have at their command a system of meanings from which they may select those which previous experience in similar situations leads them to be- lieve will prove most useful in the solution of the problem. The expert has had more experience with problems which come within his work ; he stands a greater probability of se- lecting the most significant meanings. A science is an organ- ized system of meanings for purposes of control. It has selected those meanings which have proved most useful in guiding conduct with reference to the problems in which it is especial- ly interested ; it may, whenever the occasion demands, bring to bear this organized body of knowledge as data upon any problematic situation which happens to confront it. ^' Pubi&atSns^^*'*' Definition of the Psychical in University of Chicago Decennial 2. Cf. Dewey; How We Think. Ch. IX. •The discussion refers to logical mind as vs. other aspects of mind. Pragmatism and Meaning 51 In order to determine the hypothesis which is likely to be most useful, we must bring suflticient data to bear upon the problem. The willingness to do this as over against the at- titude of the individual who never goes beyond his own nose, determines whether or not the attitude is scientific. The patience of the scientist in collecting and examining his data has become almost proverbial. The expert is he who is scien- tific in his attitude toward a problem. Compare the patience of a Darwin or a Newton who would not make their generali- zations until they had collected a tremendous body of evidence with a *Teace Conference" which assembled and refused to hear the other side's viewpoint. It did not seek sufficient data to offer satisfactory solutions of the problems before it. Their inferences could only be drawn from a very limited amount of data. In excluding the vanquished from the confer- ence they had willfully restricted their data and yet posed as experts!* The meanings they placed in the treaty may have been significant from the data they had before them but in arbitrarily restricting their data they had precluded the possibility of reaching the most significant hypotheses for a satisfactory solution of the problems before them. As another illustration of how ideas must work^ in order to be true, let us take the case of the small boy who has lost his cap. He knows he had it when he was in the house and insists that it must be some place in there. He searches from cellar to garret but fails to find his cap. He gives up the quest as a "bad job'* but later accidentally stumbles upon his cap while playing in the back yard. He has found the object for which he was looking but it has not been because of acting upon the idea v/hich he thought would bring him the results that he was after. The finding takes place outside of a logical situation. The hypothesis upon which he acted was false be- cause it did not lead him to his cap. Suppose, however, that he believes he left it in the dining room but finds it in the pantry ; his idea would be false unless he abandons the dining- room hypothesis in favor of the pantry one in the course of his search and is acting upon that idea when he finds his cap ; in 1. Cf. Pragmatism and Its Critics, Ch. V. ♦The writer holds Mr. Wilson in no way responsible for this situation. In fact, he is of the opinion that the treaty would have been still blacker in its contour had it not been for the President's presence at the conference. 52 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism this case the idea is true. The illustration in the latter in- stance would also show the abandonment of one hypothesis in favor of another. When an idea does lead to the satisfactory solution of a problem, there is a correspondence of fact and idea. This correspondence, however, is not a structural but a functional one; it is not a correspondence of an objective fact with a subjective idea but is the kind of a correspondence that takes place when the idea brings us into the presence of the object which we believed it would when we acted upon that idea. It is not a pictorial but a practical correspondence that takes place. The idea does not represent a reality; it leads to a reality. It is not an image of an objective world but a tool for the purpose of guiding conduct; it is not a mere subjective state but an instrument of control. Thus far in our discussion we have been considering only the meaning of ideas. Let us now see what we mean by the meaning of an object. An object has meaning for us as we respond to it; we see objects in terms of response. Each ob- ject has a mode of response for us and we get meaning out of it in so far as we can respond to it. Tables, chairs, pencils, books, caps, clothing and people all have a definite meaning for us because we recognize a familiar mode of response in them. We see each in terms of the motor reactions we make with reference to them. We react differently towards a cow than we do towards an automobile. The difference in the meaning of the two objects is in the kind of reactions we make with reference to them. If we always knew how to respond to an object we should have no problems. It is because we do not know how to react to an object, how to respond to a certain situation that gives rise to the problem. We do not know what kind of conduct to pursue with reference to the object; we are in doubt as to how to respond to it. Hence its meaning is not clear. A thing has no meaning because we have no experience which interprets it, at least for the time being. It begins to have meaning when we detect somewhat of a familiar motor ad- justment to it. It then becomes an object. We do not re- spond to things but to objects. A thing becomes an object when we respond to it and an object has meaning for us in • « Pragmatism and Meaning 53 so far as v/e know how to respond to it. An entirely new ob- ject would not be an object at all; it would be a thing and would possess no meaning. In so far as an object is a thing, I. e., to the extent that its meaning is undetermined it belongs to the realm of "brute'' existence. To the extent that we are unable to respond to an object it is brute and with- out meaning. Things are b7mte but objects have meaning. A problematic situation in which thinking occurs involves both a thing and an object, a partially brute existence and a partially meaningful object. In so far as the response is un- certain, the meaning of the object is ambiguous and it is a brute existence If we all knew the meanings of different objects equally well we should have no need of each others' experiences. It is because the objects themselves are complex and need to be studied that we need our experts and specialists. The more these objects are studied the more meaning do they pos- sess. An object is anything to which we respond. Our in- terests are determined by our objects and vice versa. The purpose of an education is that of bringing before an indi- vidual, many different interests so that he may know for what he is best adapted, know to what interests he will respond best. To say that we all live in the same world is absurd. We do not live in a bare metaphysical world but in our world of meanings and these meanings are determined by our ob- jects of interest. Not all experiences are equally valuable. It is the function of education to select those experiences which are found most useful, to direct interests in fruitful objects and transmit these meanings from one generation to another.^ In a complex society such as a modern civilized state, an individual could not meet the demands made upon him by modern life, were it not possible to bring him in contact v/ith a large body of meanings through our school systems. As to whether or not the meaning is in the object or the subject, it depends upon the phase of the logical process from which we view it. Without experience there certainly would be no meaning in an object. So long as we react directly toward an object the meaning is in the object but when we are in 1. Cf. Dewey : Democracy and Education. • A 54 Meaning- in Pragmatism and Realism doubt as to how to respond to it the meaning is subjective. It becomes objective when the hypothesis is verified. Meaning becomes objective through action. If we consider the point at which the problem arises, the meaning is subjective; while in its hypothetical stage it is also subjective. \VTien an idea is acted upon and it works the meaning is then in the object. If we are viewing the matter from the point at which solution takes place, the meaning is in the object. Hypotheses which are never verified are subjective. When outside a logical situation meanings are objective. They are either subjective or objective according to the stage of the process from which we view them To attempt to say that there is meaning apart from this process is fallacious. Meaning arises in the process of experience and to attempt to locate it in a particular phase of this process is merely an abstraction and false. There is meaning in an object when outside of a logical situation be- cause of previous experience and previous inquiries. Trans- lated into terms of external and internal relations, we may say that relations are external where the problem arises and while it is under investigation ; they are internal when we have no problem and at the point of solution. Meanings are internal at the non-reflective level, are external while problematic and again become internal at the point of reconstruction. We started with the position that instrumentalism is the tool by means of which the pragmatist defends the thesis of the relativity of truth, or that truth is relative to conditions and circumstances, these being determined by the needs of the problem under investigation. We then traced the stages of reflective thought, showing the point at which truth arises, that the distinction between truth and error appears v/hen thought reaches its culmination either upon the verification or the abandonment of a hypothesis through action. We learned that an idea has meaning as it leads toward an object and that an object has its meaning in terms of the response and motor adjustments that it calls forth. Meaning arises in a total process of experience and to attempt to locate it without reference to the process which gives rise to it is fallacious. We have examined the place of meaning in both prag- matism and realism and are now ready for a comparative valuation of the two positions. 5 CHAPTER IV. Comparative Valuation The present thesis is that the realist must face the prag- matist on the issue of meaning. That things exist apart from their being known in the sense that the realist uses the term, the pragmatist is perfectly willing to admit. Indeed, he never found it worth while questioning the fact. He con- siders Samuel Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley sufficient without wasting perfectly good time and energy erecting such a majestic logical structure in support of it. Prof. Dewey says : "The position taken in the essays is frankly realistic in^ acknowledging that certain bi'iite existences * detected or laid bare by thinking but in no way constituted out of thought or any mental process, set every problem for reflection and hence serve to test its otherwise merely speculative results. It is simply insisted that as a matter of fact these brute existences are equivalent neither to the objective content of the situa- tions, technological or artistic or social, in which thinking originates, nor to the things to be known — of the objects of knowledge. That there is an external world the pragmatist has never questioned. He is amused that anyone should ever doubt the fact and why m.ake so much ado about it? That this world of "brute existences" has any meaning the pragmatist disputes and, furthermore, challenges the realist to show that it has. The pragmatist is interested in a world of meanings, the world in which we live. A world that just everlastingly is simply does not interest him in the least. He cannot get up any enthusiasm for it and who can blame him? He is no more interested in such a world than he is in Kant's things-in- themselves. It has no meaning for him and why should he bother his head about it? When the realist insists that ob- jective propositions have any meaning apart from the process of experience the pragmatist must part company with him. 1. Essays in Experimental Logic, p. 35. •Italics mine. 56 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism That there are brute existences, the pragmatist does not ques- tion ; as such he is not interested in them. His problem is that of determining the meaning of such existences so that they become objects. We have seen that propositions constitute our data from the realistic viewpoint. They not only give us our data but they also furnish us with meanings. We observe the meaning in the proposition. Propositions are derived either from "facts of sense or the laws of logic." ^ Here Mr. Russell ex- plicitly states that the laws of logic constitute our scientific data but when he is accused of having done so by Prof. Dewey, he denies it on the ground that his data are derived from epistemological sources,^ epistemology here representing a "cross" between logic and psychology. Neither logic nor psychology furnishes us with data. Just how Mr. Russell is to reconcile this with the fact that we have knowledge of propositions only and that it is logic that deals with proposi- tions,^ we are left somewhat in the dark. After we question everything that is possible there will still be left a residuum which is unquestioned ; this residuum constitutes our "hard" data.'^ Mr. Russell admits that these hard data vary with different individuals and that they vary with the same individual under different conditions and cir- cumstances, with different periods of his development. In so admitting it would seem that he had let the realistic cat out of the bag but he is entirely unconscious of the fact and still insists that there are certain "logical primitives." As Prof. Dewey remarks in another connection that "when the realist lets the nose of the idealistic camel into the tent, it is not sur- prising that the camel comes in and swallows up the tent," so when Mr. Russell so gracefully opens the door for psychology, he need not be surprised that psychology comes in and robs him of his independent logic. The realistic position seems quite plausible until we be- gin to put some content into it. When we try to put any mean- ing into our "propositions," "facts," "system," "logical move- ment," etc., we begin to see that they are as blind and empty 1. Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. 72. 2. Cf. Journal of Phil.. Psych, and Sc. Methods. 3. Cf. Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. 57. 4. Cf. Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. TO, ff. Vol. XVI. No. 1. pp. 6-14. Comparative Valuation 57 as Kant's categorical imperative until we introduce the human element, connect them up with some human purpose. Even our axioms and postulates are not fixed until we have a prob- lem of some sort that calls for a solution. Mr. Russell himself admits that the hardest of our hard data change with condi- tions and circumstances. What does this mean but that our data become hard with reference to the problem at-hand? In every problem there always are facts which remain unques- tioned and Mr. Russell is perfectly correct in maintaining that there is a residuum that remains unquestioned. This resid- uum does function as hard data but this is not the sense in which he is using the term. His conception of data is not a functional but a structural one; data are just given. Are the hard data of the physicist the same as those of the mediaeval theologian ? And are the axioms and postulates of the present- day progressive theologue those of the modern catholic churchman ? Of course they differ, as Mr. Russell would admit, but he fails to see that such an admission carries with it the recognition that his system of propositions cannot even get started without some human motive or purpose. If our system cannot even get a start without reference to purposes of individuals, why expect that it should be able to maintain itself even though we grant it its initial movement? Taking a cross-section of the world today we should be able to deduce the course of human activities for the next century from the propositions that are now existing, provided that we could only discover a sufficient number of them. There would be nothing logically impossible about such a method ; the only thing that prevents our being able to do this is the limited number of propositions before us. But if we could just em- pirically observe and discover a large enough number of these propositions, we should be able to predict the course of events with logical certainty. The mediaeval member of society took just this attitude, the "God's in His heavens alFs well with the world" attitude ; he left it to the objective system of proposi- tions to work out the salvation of the world, and we know how well he succeeded in bettering his lot and at what a tre- mendous cost the little progress that was made was made at. Our plutocrats and our "stand-patters" would probably be only 58 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism too glad if our labor organizations and social reformers of various sorts would only let this objective system of proposi- tions lead to its own logical outcome. But the world is too much awake to revert to this method again. We know that if a better day for society is ever going to come it will only be as human efforts put the implications into the system. The League of Nations did not come as the logical outcome of the war and will only become effective as ive get behind it and so make it. It is not here by means of a system of propositions generating it by means of their own logical movement. The realistic propositions fail to take account of the function of intelligence in reshaping and remolding, not only the form of, but the course which propositions may take. They assume that intelligence does and can do nothing in the way of directing and controlling propositions, a perfectly unwarrantable as- sumption in the light of modern science. If the realist is unable to introduce meaning into his system at this point, much more is he at a loss when he comes to distinguishing between true and false meanings. When his premises are unable to yield meaning of any kind it seems absurd to speak of true and false meanings but for the sake of argument, let us grant him this start but catch him at the other end of the process. "Process" is hardly correct because for the realist there seems to be no process about it. Whether we identify the truth with the real with Mon- tague, state it as a one-one correlation between an existent and a subsistent as Spaulding does, connect it with a system of mutually consistent propositions (a la Holt) or hold the position of a three-term relation with Russell, in all cases the same criticism applies. Each theory leads only to a corre- spondence theory of truth and offers us no means of telling when we have and when we have not a true correspondence. The problem is essentially the same with all four positions. With Montague it takes the form of determining the real from the unreal. To substitute "real and unreal" for "truth and error" hardly offers a solution to the problem. Our problem was originally that of finding a criterion for truth and error, and to translate it into terms of the real and the unreal with- out any further means of differentiation is merely a verbal ► Comparative Valuation 59 solution. The same difficulty presents itself in Spaulding's statement in being unable to tell when we have an existent and v/hen we have only a subsistent. Prof. Holt is in no better position to help us for there is no proposition which will not fit in perfectly consistently with some system ; it may be per- fectly consistent with a system of false propositions and how are we to determine the true consistency as over against the false? Nor can Mr. Russell come to our rescue at this point for how are w^e to know v/hen the relation really does relate the terms and when it does not. All of our statements only end in so m^uch verbiage for they all insist that truth is truth and that error is error, but offer us no means of knowing when we have the one and when we have the other. Mr. Russell is forced to alternate between the positions of making truth a property of beliefs and that of making it a property of propositions. On the one hand we are told that were it not for beliefs and judgment, as respecting truth and falsity the world would be neutral ; truth and falsity are ap- plicable to our beliefs only, but on the other hand we are in- formed that truth and falsity are properties of propositions. Propositions are either true or false regardless of our asser- tions about them. A mere judgment about a proposition does not affect it in the least; it is no different when asserted than when an unasserted proposition. Even our propositions are not quite the objective sort of an affair that we should expect to find for it will be remembered that Mr. Russell's proposi- tions are a form of vjords or that v/hich may significantly be asserted or denied. These, just as Prof. Holt's entities which are outside a certain "universe of siscourse," sound somewhat psychological and vitiate Mr. Russell's logical position. His realistic position is abandoned and his propositions serve as sort of a mediator between a judgment and a fact just as his data are a go-betvreen between logic and psychology. His propositions form sort of a tertium quid by means of which he is able to smuggle in meaning to otherwise meaningless facts. They form sort of a half-way station between a sub- jective individual and an objective fact; they pose as com- pletely objective and it is only as we go back and examine Mr. Russell's initial statement about propositions, that we realize his realistic position has been vitiated from the start. CO Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism Dr. Montague is placed in the same predicament. He confesses that without our beliefs we should never have any conception of truth and error.^ These categories would not apply to the real world. Nevertheless, we are told that error is quite as objective as truth and that our beliefs about the world have nothing to do with the real world ; they have noth- ing to do with the truth or falsity of those beliefs. The true- ness or the falsity of the beliefs depends upon the real world. Thus we are told on the one hand that these attributes are properties of beliefs and on the other that they belong to things quite independent of our judgments about them. The realist prides himself upon being able to know the real world, the world as it actually is. With reference to the possibility of knowledge, Mr. RusselFs analysis does not leave us in a much better position than Bosanquet left us at the close of his discussion of judgment. Bosanquet burns his bridges behind him and erects a new structure upon which inference may safely guide us to truth but Mr. Russell is not so considerate of our feelings. He leaves us in our "private worlds''- which refer to an objective system of perspectives, but how we are to know when our private perspective truly corresponds to the real perspective, we are never told. We may assume that it does but in so assuming we have precluded the possibility for error and are consequently left in no bet- ter position ; in so assuming we should be left in the kind of a world in which Bosanquet asks us to dwell in his discussion of inference, a world without error and a world in which all things are true. That inferences cannot be drawn equally well from all data, Mr. Russell is quite right in observing, but that his scale arranged according to degrees of vagueness for inferential purposes, constitutes data,-' is quite another question. How we could arrange such a scale without reference to any specific problem is a mystery. Facts which serve as data in one situ- ation may not even be summoned for that purpose in another situation. While serving as a distinct datum in one situa- tion the same might serve as a vague datum in another situa- Comparative Valuation 61 1. Cf. The New Realism, pp. 252-62. 2. Cf. Scientific Method in Philosophy, p. 88. ff.. p. 111. 3. Cf. Jour, of Phil.. Psych, and Sc. Meth.. Vol. XVI. No. 1. p. 10 ff. • • » %. tion, or the same fact might be either vague or distinct accord- ing to the diiferent stages of the problem's solution. Data arranged in an objective scale similar to a space-time-quality series would be perfectly useless for scientific purposes. It vvould be impossible to arrange such a scale in the first place, but granted that it were possible, it would have no particular value after completion. Facts that have no bearing on the problem do not even constitute data. A man has failed to pass the literacy test. This fact constitutes a datum from which inferences m.ay be drawn concerning him. It might be- long to our class of distinct data with reference to his educa- tion but might fall in the class of vague data concerning his ability as a mechanic. Placing this fact in our scale of data, how should we proceed so as to know where to place it? We cannot place it with reference to a problem for then should our scale be vitiated by a psychological taint, a serious crime from the realistic viewpoint. Yet how are we to get any mean- ing into it without this taint? Although the realist would never admit it, his difficulties prove very similar to those of the idealist. We do not hear so much about the "Whole" in realism as we do in idealism but his ultimate entities perform exactly the same function. The Whole is just as intelligible a concept as true and real en- tities, just as easy to get at and just as workable as a method. Both bring us to a correspondence* theory of truth based upon the separation of the real and the ideal worlds. An independent thought must in some way match an in- dependent reality. Since we have no way of getting at the real world, we can never know when such a correspondence is effected. The only way we can make the theory work at all is by denying error, and by so doing, we have only another problem on our hands and consequently have not gained anyr thing. Both realism and idealism ultimately rest upon the '^aviary" conception of truth and error. If our birds were only labeled how handy it would be, but since they are not, as Plato long ago pointed out, how are we to know when we •Bosanquet objecte to the correspondence theory, holding that consistency is the "Jtimate t?st So lonp as he accepts the Absolute it is difficult to see how he escapes the cor- respondence ^viewpoint. Prof. Holt might also object to being P^f f • 68 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism is essential apart from the purpose for v/hich the paper is to be used. Meanings are essential or non-essential with refer- ence to the interest of an individual or the demands of a prob- lem. How would you determine your essentials apart from this purposeful reference? To abstract a meaning from its interest relation and set it up as the eternal essence of an object apart from its relation is the fallacy of the realist. If the realist can show that it is possible to define an object out- side of this interest relation, then his realistic position holds, but if not, it fails at the point of meaning. It is just this fallacy of definition by essential attributes that gets in the way of progress. Becauseja^ertain jneaning has been of value in a ^[yen situation, it is. then set.muisjaja "essential attribute*' or an "inalienable right" of some kind which makes it impossible for society to be free to reconstruct Jts own ends. Thus the doctrine of "natural rights" . served its purpose at the time of the American Revolution but is now^ in the way of governmental legislation for purposes of con- trolling wealth and labor conditions. The Monroe Doctrine is another case of "necessary foreign policy," w^hich when translated into logical terms, becomes that of "essential attri- butes." "We always have had war and are going to have it," is another case of interfering with progress by definition. States always have been "beyond" morality in their relations with one another and consequently must always so be; they would not be states if they were moral in their relations; secret and deceitful diplomacy are the essential attributes of states. All this is only another way of saying "politics is politics" and why try to make them anything different? It represents the attitude of definition by "essential attributes" toward life. It simply blocks all hope for progress. The realist has such a phobia for subjectivism that when the pragmatist says that knowledge does make a difference in the character of the object known he accuses him of holding that knowledge is constitutive of its object. Both Prof. Perry and Prof. Spaulding — as well as Prof. Bosanquet, the idealist — bring this accusation against the pragmatist.' They evi- « I « • » ( • • 4 t 1. Perry: Present Philosophical Tcnder.cies, pp. 197-203. Spaulding : New Rationalism, Ch, XXXIII. Bosantiuet: Logic, Vol. II, Ch. IX. Comparative Valuation 69 dently are not familiar with the following passage from Prof. Dewey : "For the more one insists that the antecedent situation' is constituted by thought, the more one has to wonder w^hy another type of thought is required; what need arouses it, and how it is possible for it to improve upon the work of previous constitutive thought. This difficulty at once forces idealists from a logic of experience as it is completely experi- enced into a metaphysic of a purely hypothetical experience. Constitutive thought precedes our conscious thought-opera- tions ; hence it must be the working of some absolute universal which, unconsciously to our reflection, builds up an organized v/orld. But this recourse only deepens the difficulty. How^ does it happen that the absolute constitutive and intuitive Thought does such a poor and bungling job that it requires a finite discursive activity to patch up its products? Here more metaphysic is called for: The Absolute Reason is now supposed to work under to limiting conditions of finitude, of a sensitive and temporal organism. The antecedents of re- flective thought are not, there Core, determinations of thought pure and undefiled, but of what thought can do when it stoops to assume the yoke of change and of feeling. I pass by the metaphysical problem left unsolved by this flight ; Why and hov/ should a perfect, absolute, complete, finished thought find it necessarv to submit to alien, disturbing, and corrupting conditions in order, in the end, to recover through reflective thought in a partial, piecemeal, wholly inadequate way what it possessed at the outset in a much more satisfactory way?" Does this sound as though the instrumentalist has very much use for constitutive thought? No, the pragmatist does not hold that thought constitutes its object. What he does in- sist on is that it reconstructs its object. Thought is regulative, not constitutive; it is reconstructive, not constructive; it is in- strumental and active, not passive and ineffective. Knowledge from the point of view of the realist is not only impossible, but would be useless, granted that it were possible. His thesis is that knowing in no way affects the character of the object known. If this be true, why bother to know at all? Why waste so much time and energy in the pursuit of knowledge? Knowledge makes no difference in the way things behave ; they would act the way they do whether known or not. In order to make good on his thesis that knowl- 1. Essays in Experimental Logic, pp. 131, 132. • > « • 70 Meanins: in Pragmatism and Realism edge makes no difference in the object known, the realist must admit the futility of science and the uselessness of knowledge. If knowledge does not alter its object, what hope have we of control? Of what value is our science? Obviously the object is different when known than when unknown. If knowl- edge is an essential factor in the killing of germs, who can say that the germs are no different when known than when un- known ? The disease traced to these germs is certainly a dif- ferent object when sanitary precautions are observed than when the germs are allowed to run around loose. Here let us again remember that the object of knowledge is its objective, viz., in this particular instance that of curing a disease ; it is not the mere becoming aware of a germ and taking no action with reference to it. But, moreover, even this becoming aware involves a certain amount of experimentation. The act of thought would not be complete at this stage of awareness for the problem would remain hypothetical. If we take the realis- tic position in regard to knowledge then our knowledge is use- less. If what the realist holds is the object of knowledge, it does, of course, make no difference to the object known. The difficulty in holding this view is that it not only makes knowl- edge impossible, but makes it of no use, conceding its possi- bility. The paradox of the situation is that the realist, who builds his philosophy primarily in the interests of epistem- ology, simply begs the problem by assuming a false object of knowledge, while the pragmatist, who has an abhorrence for epistemology, concerns himself primarily with a method for determining the meaning of the object of knowledge. The old Greek controversy between Socrates and the Sophists is still raging in present-day philosophy in a modified form between the pragmatists and the realists. The realist asks us to go "back to Plato,*' while the pragmatist would have us move "on to Protagoras." "From Plato to Prota- goras"^ is Dr. Schiller's watchword. He holds that it was Plato, who by his misconception of the function of a concept, gave us a static world and that if we desire a world com- patible with change and progress, we must move "on to Pro- tagoras." In the Greek controversy Plato won out; we can- I ffi < « ■• « i» 1. Cf. Studies in Humanism, Essay II. Comparative Valuation 71 not afford to let him v/in today. To follow Protagoras is not to return ; it is a step forward, a movement in the right direc- tion, says Dr. Schiller. At Plato's time the Protagorean relativism was horrifying. The present generation sees noth- ing vicious in such relativism. It has faith in intelligence to conceive the better and act with reference to it. Indeed the demand of a progressive society to be free to reconstruct its own ends not only makes such relativism desirable, but makes it imperative. Furthermore, judgment is not relative to the individual as an isolated and independent unit, but is social in character because the individual himself is social. It is this social character of judgment that corrects the "vicious- ness" of its relativism. The pragmatist is not afraid of chaos resulting for he has a method for the determining of values and has faith in intelligence in the application of this method. He sees no particular virtue in deceiving ourselves in thinking that our own judgments of value are objective and universal, while the other fellow, who does not happen to agree with us, is tainted with subjectivism. Thus Professor Dewey says: "Becr.use Mr. James recognizes that the personal element^ pTite-^s into judgements passed upon whether a problem has or has not been satisfactorily solved, he is charged with extreme subjectivism, with encouraging the element of personal prefer- ence to run rough-shod over all objective controls. Now the question raised ... is primarily one of fact, not of doc- trine. Is or is not a personal factor found in truth evalua- tions? If it is, pragmatism is not responsible for introducmg it. If it is not, it ought to be possible to refute pragmatism by anpeal to empirical fact, rather than reviling it for subjec- tivism. Now it is an old story that philosophers, m common with theologians and social theorists, are so sure that personal habits and interests shape their opponents' doctrines as they are that their own beliefs are 'absolutely' universal and objec- tive in quality. Hence arises that dishonesty, that insincerity characteristic of philosophic discussion . . . Now the moment the complicity of the personal factor m our phi o- sonhic valuations is recognized, is recognized fully, .j/*ankly, and generally, that moment a new era in philosophy will begin. We shall have to discover the personal factors that now influ- ence us unconsciously, and begin to accept a new and moral responsibility for them, a responsibility for judging and test- ing them by their consequences. So long as we ignore this 1. Essays in Experimental Logic, pp. 326, 7. r *« ] • 72 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism factor, its deeds will be largely evil, not because it is evil, but because, flourishing in the dark, it is without responsibility and without check. The only way to control it is by recog- nizing it. And while I would not prophesy of pragmatism's future, I would say that this element which is now so gen- erally condemned as intellectual dishonesty (perhaps because of an uneasy, instinctive recognition of the searching of hearts its acceptance would involve) will in the future be accounted unto philosophy for righteousness* sake." It is this personal element that the realist ignores. The price he pays is that he is left in a world without meaning. Because Plato* failed to recognize the functional value of concepts and set them up as metaphysical entities, eternal ideas or abstract essences, ideals have been pitched in the clouds as something toward which we should eternally strive but never quite realize. Our conduct with reference to moral- ity is like a variable approaching a constant; we may keep moving toward our goal but never quite get there. Because the pragmatist has no use for such abstract ideals, he is accused of having none at all; he is just moving but is not going anywhere. He indulges in **action for action's sake" but has no end for acting. Thus Prof. Perry tells the follow- ing story^ that is supposed to be characteristic of pragmatism. *'A negro had inadvertently broken into a wasp's nest. As he was rushing headlong down the road he was stopped by a white man, and asked where he was going. He replied, *I ain't goin' nowhere, boss. I'se just leavin' the place where I was at.' " For those who cannot be moved without a pull from above this criticism may be true, but for the pragmatic temperament which is satisfied with a push from within and a reach toward the kind of an ideal which intelligence gener- ates, it is hardly fair. The pragmatist thinks it better to move with reference to specific problems rather than to rave on about a lot of abstract ideals which are meaningless until brought into experience in relation to given situations. The ideal for the pragmatist is his hypothesis, the idea upon which he acts for the purpose of bettering a concrete situation. His goal is that which his problem sets and he fails to see why it is necessary to have a Platonic essence as a goal in order 1. Present Conflict of Ideals, p. 316. t,, . *u i *• i ^ *u» •The reference is to the celestial Plato for there are two Plates, the celestial and the terrestrial, the latter having to a large extent been lost sight of by the fornaer. V. I ^ \ i I t Af f r- V ( * ? » Comparative Valuation 73 to be moving toward an end. In fact he prefers to move in this way for he sees that it is the disregard of the personal factor in judgments of value together with this loyalty to Platonic Ideas that justifies untold suffering and misery on the part of concrete individuals for the sake of an abstract humanity. One of the reasons that war never realizes its ideals— or rather the ideals that were supposed to be at stake is that the ideals themselves have been pulled down from the clouds, and after the excitement is over they fail to func- tion because they are blind and empty, void of content and without meaning. They have not grown up on the soil of in- dividual experience. It is this soil alone that can give them meaning, give them nourishment and vitality that they may be effective.^ The world war is a case in point. Pragmatism is not moving any place in general, but it does aim to move definitely with reference to particular problems. Realism may be moving somewhere in general but gets nowhere in particular. It is simply a question as to which is the better way to move. The pragmatist, who sees no meaning in gen- eral movements, could equally as well accuse the realist of having no goal, since for him a general goal is no goal at all. As a matter of fact, the realist does move in about the same way as does the pragmatist— and the idealist as well for that matter. The reason that the realist and the idealist do so act is because they abandon their metaphysical premises under the pressure of having to act in life. It is only in their profes- sional capacities that truth and right are absolute. This, how- ever, does afford some consolation at times of great crises but the pragmatist, whose duty it was to laugh the absolute out of court, is not so successful in deceiving himself* The educational import of the pragmatic functional ideal as the hetter of which the individual conceives in a concrete situation as over against the realistic subsistential, entitative ideal is that it enables an ideal to be vitalized, enables it to function in conduct; it enables it to get tied up with the nervous system in such a way that it finds expression for itself in activity. The realistic entity is a ready-made form which 1 Cf Schiller: Studies in Humanism, Essay VI. •kr. Russell is a good pragmatist Jn this^ respect. Justice and Democracy. I 74 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism is supposed to fit every situation and consequently applies to none. It is sort of a universal coat which nobody can wear. In designing it to fit everybody it practically fits nobody. It therefore is empty and without content ; it possesses no mean- ing and hence can function in experience only as it is thrust upon us. Here again, we must not forget a favorite pragmatic thesis, viz., that thinking is instrumental to conduct An ideal that just is cannot function in conduct, and hence, from the pragmatic viewpoint, has no particular value. This is the fallacy of beautiful moral sentiments that fail to express themselves in action. It is the morality of mere words ; words have meaning only in so far as they express themselves through conduct. The pragmatist does not divorce theory and practice ; he believes in thinking and acting in the same world. One cannot act in a world of subsistential entities and an ideal that is located in such a realm is impotent so far as influencing conduct is concerned. The realist has a ready- made meaning which we may acquire ; the pragmatist has his meanings in the making; they arise through the process of inquiry.^ Both Prof. Spaulding and Prof. Perry accuse pragmatism of being "anti-intellectual."- If we mean by "anti-intellectual'* a thought that just thinks, the pragmatist pleads guilty to the charge; he not only glories in the fact but prides himself upon not having such a kind of thought. If, however, we mean by "anti-intellectual"' the discouraging and depreciation of intel- ligence, the accusation is not just. Anti-intellectual should not be taken to mean anti-intelligent. Perhaps the realist does not mean to convey the latter meaning by the term, and if not, the pragmatist has no objection to being called "anti-intel- ieclual" if the realist gets any particular satisfaction out of having it thus. No philosophy puts a higher premium on in- telligence than does pragmatism, and lest the realist's charge of anti-intellectualism should convey the impression that the pragmatist underestimates or in any way disparages the func- tion of intelligence for purposes of control, let me quote once more from Prof. Dewey : .1.1 U' l I t H- V Comparative Valuation 75 1. Cf. Democracy and Education. 2. Cf. The New RationalLm, pp. 274-83. Present Conflict of Ideals. Ch. XX, Sect. 1, "We pride ourselves upon being realistic, desiring a hard-' headed cognizance of facts, and devoted to mastering the means of life. We pride ourselves upon a practical idealism, a lively and easily moved faith in possibilities as yet unreal- ized, in willingness to make sacrifice for their realization. Idealism easily becomes a sanction of waste and carefulness, and realism a sanction of legal formalism in behalf of things as they are — the right of the possessor. We thus tend to com- bine a loose and ineffective optimism with assent to the doc- trine of take who take can : a deification of power. All peoples at all times have been narrowly realistic in practice and have then employed idealization to cover up in sentiment and theory their brutalities. But never, perhaps, has the tendency been so dangerous and so tempting as with ourselves. Faith in the power of intelligence* to imagine a future which is the projec- tion of the desirable in the present, and to invent the instru- mentalities of its realization, is our salvation. And it is a faith which must be nurtured and made articulate : surely a sufficiently large task for our philosophy." Compare the above with this from Prof. Perry : "There is nothing dispiriting in realism. It involves the- acceptance of the given situation as it is, with no attempt to think or imagine it already good. But involves no less the conception of the reality and power of life. It is opposed equally to an idealistic anticipation of the victory of spirit, and to a naturalistic confession of the impotence of spirit. In this sense all bold and forward living is realistic. It involves a sense for things as they are, an ideal of things as they should be, and a determination that, through enlightened action, things shall in time come to be what they should 6e*." The obvious criticism of the realist's position at this point is that with his realistic premises, he would find it quite im- possible to make things as they "should be." He starts with an "alien world" in which knowledge makes no difference in the character of the object known. If this be true how can enlightened action in any way influence the implications which necessarily hold between propositions ? The realist must either admit the pragmatic object of knowledge or confess the futili- ty of science for purposes of control. If he grants the prag- matist this point, he is forced to abandon his realistic posi- tion ; if he refuses he defeats the purposes of science and his own efforts to know are without meaning. 1. Creative Intelligence, pp. 68, 69. 2. Present Philosophical Tendencies, p. 347. •Italics mine. in. 76 Meaning in Pragmatism and Realism The realist is so haunted by subjectivism that when the pragmatist insists upon the creative aspect of intelligence, he is accused of manufacturing a world by sitting down and thinking it into existence. This seems so utterly abhorrent to the realist that he keeps telling us "the thing exists, the thing exists, etc.," until such a commonplace begins to sound profound. The pragmatist has never tried to deny the fact that the thing does exist. Of course it does but why talk about it? If, instead of talking about things existing apart from their being known, the realist would tell us that meaning exists in such a form, perhaps much of the misunderstanding between realism and pragmatism might be avoided. When pressed in his position, the realist always gains a hearing by coming back at us with the cry of "things exist apart from their being known." This is well and good so long as he is speaking with the disciples of Bishop Berkeley, but why accuse the pragmatist of the Bishop's sins? Mr. Russell seems still to be laboring under this delusion. He writes : "Dr. Schiller says that the external world was first dis-^ covered by a low marine animal whom he calls 'Grumps,' who swallowed a bit of rock that disagreed with him, and argued that he v/ould not have given himself such a pain, and there- fore there must be an external world. One is tempted to think that, at the time when Prof. Dewey wrote, many people in the new^er countries had not yet made the disagreeable experience which G rumps made. Meanwhile, whatever accusations prag- matists may bring, I shall continue to protest that it was not I who made the ivoiid.'''^' Nor is Mr. Russell alone in so protesting for he has our hearty co-operation in thus protesting. When, however, the realist insists that the implications of propositions are just there and that intelligence* can do nothing in the way of con- trolling these implications, pragmatists rise up in protest, and despite realistic contentions to the contrary, insist that we have a part in the making of the world, the re-shaping and remolding of reality. It is in this sense that intelligence is creative. 1. "Professor Dewey's 'Essays in Experimental Logic* " in Journal of Philosophy, Psy- chology and Scientific Methods. Vol. XVI, No. 1, p. 26. •Throughout the discussion intelligence has been used in its broader meaning. Set author's article on "Elthics and Logic" in International Journal of Ethics, April, '22. •Italics mine. % / i I «r ft- c >• V y f t t U*' BIBLIOGRAPHY John Dewey — Essays in Experimental Logic. John Dewey — How We Think, John Dewey — Democracy and Education, Bertrand RusseW— Scientific Method in Philosophy. Bertrand Russell — Introduction to Philosophy, Bertrand Russell — Philosophical Essays. R. B. Perry — Present Philosophical Tendencies. R. B. Perry — The Present Conflict of Ideals. E. G. Spaulding— T/ie New Rationalism, E. B. Holt — The Concept of Consciousness, A. W. Moore — Pragmatism and its Critics. William James — Psychology. William James — Pragmatism, William James— T/ie Meaning of Truth, F. C. S. Schiller — Studies in Humanism. F. C. S. Schiller — Formal Logic. Bernard Bosanquet — Logic. F. H. Bradley — Appearance and Reality. Josiah Royce — The World and the Individual. M. T. McClure — The New Realism. Creative Intelligence. The New Realism, Studies in Logical Theory. Garman Memorial Volume. Commemorative Volume to William James, G, H. 'Mesid— 'Definition of the Psychical/' University of Chicago Decennial Publications. John Dewey— 'T/i6 Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology, Psych. Rev. Vol. Ill, p. 357. A. W. Moore — ''The Aviary Conception of Truth and Error, Jour, of Phil., Psych, and Sc. Meth. Vol. X, p. 542. Bertrand RusseW— Professor Dewey's *'Essays in Experiment tal Logic/' Jour, of Phil., Psych, and Sc. Meth. Vol. XVI, No. 1, p. 26. 1 I y s^ COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY U BRARIES 1010678891 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing as provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with the Ldbrarian in charge. DATE BORROWED DATE DUE DATE BORROWED DATE DUE m 1 8 "SI J iAV 2 fi -51 ( \^^^ Boardnan The signifioance of «,« . i C28 (1149) 100M # v.^ \r 0* :-A »^w