Thomas Stearns Eliot Knowledge and Experience in The Philosophy of F. H. Bradley 1964

KNOWLEDGE AND E X P E R I E ~ C E
in the philosophy of F. H. Bradley

By T. S. ELIOT
verse
COLLECTED POEMS, 1909-1952
FOUR QUARTETS
THE CULTIVATION OF CHRIgT)1AS TREES
selected verse
SELECTED POEMS
THE WASTE LAND
chzldren's verse
OLD POSSUM'S BOOK OF PRACTICAL CATS
plays
COLLECTED PLAYS
MURDER D; THE CATHEDRAL
THE FAMILY REUNION
THE COCKTAIL PARTY
THE CONFIDENTIAL CLERK
THE ELDER STATESMAN
ltterar!J crztzclsm
SELECTED ESSAYS
THE USE OF POETRY AND THE USE OF CRITICISM
ON POETRY AND POETS
soczal crzticzsm
THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN SOCIETY
NOTES TOWARDS THE DEFINITION OF CULTURE
phzlosoph!J
KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE
in the phIlosophy of F. H. Bradley
selected prose
SELECTED PROSE (wIth Pengum Books Ltd.)
film script
THE FILM OF MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL
translatzon
ANABASIS a poem by St.-John Perse
",J W LED G.
A!'. D
in the philosophy of F. H. Bradley
by
T. S. ELIOT
FABER AND FABER
24 Russell Square
London
First published in mcml:civ
by Faber and Faber Limited
~ 4 Russell Square London W.C.1
Printed in Great Britain by
R. MacLeltose and Company Limited
The University Press Glasgow
All rigMs reserved
1964 by T. S. Eliot
TO l\1Y vVIFE
who urged me to publish
this essay
Preface
From October 1911 until June 1914 I was a student in the Harvard
Graduate School as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. Tills degree was to be attained in three stages. at the
end of the second year by Preliminary Examinations in which
one was tested in all the branches of philosophy which one had
studied, and in the abilIty to translate French and German
philosophical work into English; later by the presentation of a dls
sertation on a subject approved by the heads of the department;
and :finally a viva, in which the aspirant defended his thesis and
was again tested for his command of logic, psychology and the
history of philosophy.
The dissertation which is here published for the first time, was
prepared during those years and during a year in which, thanks
to the award of a Sheldon Travelling Fellowship by Harvard
University, I was at Merton College as a pupil of Harold Joachim,
the disciple of Bradley who was closest to the master. To Harold
Joachim I owe a great deal: the dIscipline of a close study of the
Greek text of the Posterior Analytics, and, through his criticism
of my weekly papers, an understandmg of what I wanted to say
and of how to say it. On going down from Oxford in 1915 I made
the decision to stay in England, and had to seek a source ofliveli-
hood. From the autumn of 1915 until the end of 1916 I earned my
living as a schoolmaster. I did not, however, abandon immediately
the intention of fulfilling the conditions for the doctor's degree.
Harvard had made it possible for me to go to Oxford for a year;
and this return at least I owed to Harvard. So, amongst my other
labours, I completed the :first draft of my dissertation, and des-
patched it across the Atlantic for the judgment of the Han"ard
Department of Philosophy. In April 1916, when this w"ork was
completed, I was a JUlllor master at the Highgate JUIllor School.
9
Preface
So much for the origins of this study ofthe theory of knowledge
according to the philosophy of Francis Herbert Bradley. I dId not
return to Harvard to complete the requirements for the doctor's
degree, and I did not see that University again for seventeen
years after I had left it. Nor dId I give any further thought to this
dissertation after learning that it had been offiCIally approved.
A few years ago Professor Hugh Kenner of California In hIS
book The Invisible Poet drew attention to it in a chapter on my
debt to Bradley. My cunosity, however, was :first stimulated by a
visit from Professor Anne Bolgan of the University of Alaska,
who had read the script in the Harvard Umversity archives, and
had obtained, with my permission, a photostatic copy. She had also
seen there the carbon copy of a letter to me from Professor J. H.
Woods wntten shortly after my dissertation had been presented,
in which he said that J osiah Royce, the doyen of American philo-
sophers, had spoken of it 'as the work of an expert'. Mr Wllliam
Jackson, curator of the Houghton Library at Harvard, supplied
me with a photostatIc copy of the text (the original typescript
being, of course, the property of the University).
To Professor Bolgan, who has made a close study of this essay,
I am deeply indebted She has read the present text and made im-
portant corrections and suggestions; she has most pamstakingly
edited the text. We have endeavoured, however, only to remove
such errors and blemishes as appear to have been due to careless-
ness or haste. She has also checked my references (as far as is now
possible) and has prepared a select bIbliography, the index, and
valuable notes.
I wish also to thank Mr Peter Heath of the University of St
Andrews, for translating the passages quoted from German
authors.
Forty-six years after my academic prulosophizing came to an
end, I find myself unable to think in the terminology ofthis essay.
Indeed, I do not pretend to understand It. As phllosophizmg, it
may appear to most modern philosophers to be quaintly anti-
quated. I can present this book only as a curiOSIty of bIOgraphical
interest, which shows, as my wife observed at once, how closely
10
Preface
my own prose style was formed on that of Bradley and how little
It has changed III all these years. It was she who urged me to
publish it; and to her I dedicate it.
There is evidently a page or so missing from chapter VI. the
gap occurs after the last sentence of the paragraph wIDch here
ends at the top of page 146. What may at first appear more
serious is the loss of one or several pages of the conclusion of the
essay. The last page of the typescript ends with an unfinished
sentence: For if all objectivity and all knowledge is relative . ... I
have omitted this exasperating clause it is suitable that a dIsser-
tation on the work ofFranclS Herbert Bradley should end with the
words 'the Absolute'. Mr. Jackson tells me that these pages were
missing when the scrrpt came into his care This does not seem to
me to matter. the argument, for what it is worth, is there.
But at Professor Bolgan's suggestion I have appended, as partIal
compensation for the loss of the concluding page or pages, two
essays which I wrote In 1916, and which appeared III The Monist, a
philosophlCal penodlCal published in Crucago. It was Philip
Jourdain, the Brihsh correspondent of that journal (to whom, I
remember, I had been introduced by Bertrand Russell) who
kindly commIssioned these articles. They appeared in a number
devoted to the celebration of the bl-centenary of the death of
Lelbmz.
The original title of this dissertation was Experience and the
Objects of Knowledge in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley with the
sub-title A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the require-
ments jar candidates jor the doctorate oj philosophy in philosophy at
Harvard University.
T.S.E.
11
PREFACE
Contents
Knowledge and Experience in the
Philosophy oJ F. H. Bradley
page 9
1. ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF brMEDIA TE EXPERIENCE 15
Il. ON THE DISTINCTION OF 'REAL' AND 'IDEAL' g ~
Ill. THE PSYCHOLOGIST'S TREATMENT OF KNOWLEDGE 57
IV. THE EPISTEMOLOGIST'S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE 84
V. THE EPISTEMOLOGIST'S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
(continued) 1 1 ~
VI. SOLIPSISM,
VII. CONCLUSION
NOTES
141
153
170
ApPENDIX 1. 'The Development ofLelbniz' J\i[onadism.' 177
ApPENDIX II. 'Lelbniz' Monadlsm and Bradley's Finite
Centres.' 198
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ~ 0 8
INDEX OF NAJl.rES ~ 1 4
IS
CHAPTER I
On Our Knowledge of
Imlnediate Experience
~ -t is not my mtention in the present paper to cover the whole
field of epistemology, or even to hint at the existence of many
~ ' - questions of which my subject seems to demand some dis-
cussion. The formatIOn of general ideas, the theory of judgment
and inference, probabllity and the validity of knowledge, fall out-
side the scope of my attempt. And the problem of error will seem
to recelve very slight treatment. In the present chapter I wish to
take up Bradley's doctrine of 'll111nediate experience' as the
starting point oflmowledge. Then the rest of the essay will occupy
itself Wlth the development of subject and object out of immediate
experience, with the question of independence, and with the
precise meaning of the term 'objectivity'.
v'Bradley uses the term 'experience' and the term 'feeling' almost
interchangeably, both in Appearance and in the essay 'On Our
Knowledge ofImmediate Expenence '* which is the most important
locus for my present chapter. In the use pf these terms wc must
observe the greatest caution. 'Ve must be on guard> in the firstl
place, against identifying experience with consciousness, or'
against considering experience as the adjective of a subject. Vie
must not confuse immediate experience with sensation, we must,
not think of it as a sort of panorama passing before a reviewer'i
and we must avoid thinking of it as the content or substance of a
mind. And 'feeling' we must remember, is a term of very wide
application, so that in some of its quite legitimate uses it is cer-
* In Essays on Truth and Realtty (referred to as Truth and Realtty in subsequent
notes).
15
On Our Knowledge oj Immediate Experience
tainly not identical with "experience'. We must accustom ourselves
to 'feeling' which is not the feeling of though it is in
a way continuous with psychological feeling. And when we are
told (Appearance, p. 406) that feeling is 'the immediate unity of a
finite psychical centre' we are not to understand that feeling is
merely the feeling of a mind or consciousness. 'It means for
first, the general condition before distinctions and relations have
been developed, and where as yet neither any subject nor object
exists. And it means, in the second place, anytlung which is
present at any stage of mental life, in so far as that is only present
and simply is. In this latter sense we may say that everything
actual, no matter what, must be felt; but we do not call it feeling
except so far as we take it as faihng to be more.' (Appearance,
pp. 406-7.)
Keeping these quotations in mind, we turn at once to the words
which the whole theory is summed up in the essay to which I
have referred. Experience, we are told, 'is not a stage whlCh
shows Itself at the beginning and then disappears, but It remains
at the bottom throughout as fundamental. And further, remain-
ing, it contains in itself every development which in a sense
transcends it. Nor does it merely contam all developments, but in
its own way it acts as their j udge.'l In these words we have expressed
the whole difference between Bradley's view of experience and
those of certain other contemporary philosophers. For, in the first
place, immediate experience is not at any stage of consciousness
merely a presentation which can be isolated from other elements
also present or subsequent in consciousness. It ;not 'sense-Q.ata'
sensations, it is not a of feeling which, merely felt,. IS
an attribute of the subject side only and must in some way_be
'related' to an external worlq. And it is not, lastly, more pure or
more immediate in the animal or the infant mind than in the mind
of the mathematician engaged upon a problem. Whether there is
a stage at experience is Bradley
we have agreed to leave doubtful. But here, I feel sure, he has
understated his case, and we may assert positively that there is
indeed no such stage. This point is worthy of some elucidation.
16
On Our Knowledge of Immediate Experience
We are forced, in building up our theory of knowledge, to
postulate something given upon w:hich knowledge is founded. And
we are forced to a certain extent to consider this construction as
something which takes place in time. We think, on the one hand, .i
of material presented to our at every moment, and of the
whole situation in knowing as a complex with this datum as one
of the constituents. And we think also of the development of
conSCIOusness in biological evolution as a development of know-u
ledge. And if there is any problem of knowledge at all, neither of
these points of view is Irrelevant. But we are apt to confuse the
two: from the genetic point of view, all of the stages are actualities,
whereas the various steps in knowing described in an actual piece
of knowing in the mind of an adult man are abstractions, not
known as separate objects of attention. They exist at the same
time; there is no priority in our expenence of one element or
another. When we turn to inspect a lower stage of mind, chIld
or animal, or our own when it is least active, we do not find one or
another of these elements into which we analyse the developed
consciousness, but we find them all at a lower stage. We do not
find feeling without thought, or presentation without refiectlOn;
we find both feeling and thought, presentation, redintegration
and abstraction, all at a lower stage. And if this is the case, such
study of primitive consciousness seems futile; for we find in our
own knowing exactly the same constituents, in a clearer and more
apprehensible form.
But on the other hand, were present
in eve!:'J if none were omitted in error, or if none
any precedence over another, all analyses of knowmg '\
would be equally tenable. be no practical difference:
for when there are no bones, anybody can carve a goose. If we did
think that at some moments our consciousness is nearer to "pure'
experience than at others, if we did not think of 'sense-datum' as
prior to "object" if we did not feel that 'act' or 'content" or
'immanent' and "transcendent' object were not as independent of
each other, as capable of entering into different contexts as a
table and a chair, the fact of their difference would be a perfect
B 17 E.K.E.
On OUT Knowledge of Immediate E{tpeTience
example of useless knowledge: In the philosophy of Bradley we
shall find this difficulty m an aggravated form, although a form
no more fatal, I think, than the form which it may take in any
other philosophy. There is immediate experience, contrasted with
ideal construction; which is prior, and in some sense, certainly,
prior in time, to the ideal construction... But we go on to find that
no actual experience could be merely immediate, for If it were,
we should certainly know nothmg about It; and also that the line
between the experienced, or the given, and the constructed can
nowhere be clearly drawn. Then we discover that the difference in
no instance holds good outside of a relative and fiuctuatmg point
of view. ExperIence alone is real, but everything can be experI-
enced. And although experience is the foundation and
the goal of our knowmg, yet no experience is only immediate.
point of view from which real ideal can
be finally separated and labelled. All of our terms turn out to be
un;:-eal abstractions, but we can defend them, and give them a kind
of reality and validity (the only validity which they can possess or
can need) by showing that they express the theory of knowledge
which is implicit in an our practical activity. And therefore we allow
ourselves to hold both that a lower stage of mere feeling is irrele-
vant and that k!l0wledge is based upon and developed out offeeling.
vVe may say, then, on our attention to lower levels of
being, that what we find is not a subtraction, but a general
impoverishment. The animal may be as Mr Bradley says 'immersed
in practice'; but this is by no means the same thing as immersion
in feeling. The animal acts; and any feeling which is acted upon so
far goes beyond mere presentation. No stage can be so low as to be
mere feeling; and on the other hand man surely feels more than
the animal. There is no greater mistake than to think that feeling
and thought are exclusive-that those beings which think most and!
b
. J
est are not also those capable of the most feelIng .
.,/ Although there is no stage of life which is more nearly immediate
experience than another, and although we are unacquainted with
any element in our experience which we can single out as immedl-
18
ate; although we cannot know immediate experience directly as
an object, we can yet arrive at it by inference, and even conclude
that it. 5s the starting point of our knowing, since it is only in
immediate experience that knowledge and its The
fact that we can to a certain make object of it, while at
the same time it is not an ohject among others, not a term which
can be in relation to anything else: this throws our
into the greatest embarrassment. We are forced to use terms drawn
out of it, to handle it as an QJ eitl}.er subject or object
side, as my experience, or the experienced world. The monistic
account is apt to take the first course, pluralism the second. But
whether we say 'the world is my experience' or (James, Essays in
Radical Empiricism, p. that experience 'is <?! that, of just
what appears, of space, of intensity, of flatness, brownness,
heaviness, or what not', we have been in either case gudty of
importing meanings which hold good only within experience. We
have no right, except in the most provisional way, to speak of my
experience, since the I is a construction out of experience, an
abstraction from it; and the thats, the browns and hards' and
flats, are equally ideal constructions from experience, as ideal as
atoms. An elan vital or 'flux' is equally abstracted from experience,
for it is only in immediate experience that we are
aware of such a procesT.In short, we can only discuss experiez:{ce
from one side and then from the other, correctingtnese partial
views. This preface is necessary if we are to understand Bradley's
use of such terms as 'feeling', 'psychical' or 'spiritual', all of which
seem to emphasize the subject side of experience.
The real, we w.e b_etake
It is the real, which there appears which is the
subject of all predicates.' be careful not to. identify
reality feeling, eithe;r my feeling, or collective feeling, ,or a..!l
impersonal current of feeling. is to be taken (Appearance,
p. 419) 'a,s a sort of confusion, and as a nebula which would gr9W
distinct on closer scrutin,y'. That of which it is a confusion. and
into which it can be analysed, is (Appearance, p. 405) 'speaking
broadly. .. two great modes, perception and thought on the
19
On Our Knowledge DJ Immediate Emperience
one side, and will and desire on the other side. Then there is the
aesthetic attitude ... and ... pleasure and pain'. Feeling is 'the
general state of the total soul not yet at all differentiated into any
of the preceding special aspects'. And again it is 'any partipular
state so far as internally that has undistinguished unity'/Thus
i.tp.mediate experience seems to be in one aspect a condition of the
subject. The real in feeling?" and feeling "is 'the
general state the total soul' though we find elsewhere that
the soul is itself not real. An even this statement does not tell us
that feeling is reality, or even that feeling is real. Feeling is not
(..Appearance, p. 407) a 'consistent aspect of reality' although
reality is that which we encounter in feeling or perceptIOn.
,,/ The for denying that feeling is consistently real are
briefly as follows. Mr;re feeling is something which could find no
place in a world of objects. It is, in a sense, an abstraction from
any actual situation. We have, or seem to have at the start a
'confusion' of feeling, out of which subject and object emerge.
We stand before a beautiful painting, and if we are sufficiently
carried away, our feeling is a whole which is not, in a sense, our
feeling, since the painting, which is an object independent of us,
is quite as truly a constituent as our consciousness or our soul.
The feeling is neither here nor anywhere: the painting is in the
room, and my 'feelings' about the picture are in my 'mind'. If this
whole of feeling were complete and satisfactory it would not ex-
pand into object, and subject with feelings about the object; there
would, in fact, be no consciousness.Eut in order that it should be
feeling at all, it must be conscious, but so far as it is conscious it
ceases to be merely therefore an aspect) and an
inconsistent aspect, in knowing; it is not a separate and isolable
phase. On the one hand, feeling is an abstraction f;om anything
actual; on the other hand the objects into which feeling IS
differentiated have a kind of union: which they do not themselves
account for; they fuse into each other and stand out upon a back-
ground which is merely felt, and from which they are continually
requiring supplementation. In order that these developments-'
thought, will, pleasure and pain, 0 bj ects - may be feeling'

must have been given, and when these developments have
feeling has expanded and altered so as to include them. (Truth
and Reality, p. 175. 'At every my else it}s,
is a whole of which I am aWl!re. It is an experienced
non-relational unity of many in one.') This is what we mean-by
saying that feeling is self-transcendent.
""Now it is easy to fall mto the error of imagining that this self-
transcendence of feeling is an event only in the history of souls,
and not in the history of the external world:it is hard to disabuse
ourselves of the prejudice that feeling is something subjective and
private, and that it affects only what feels, not what is felt: The .
reason for this is not far.to seek. Feeling itself is properly speaking
neither subjective nor objective, but its development into an
articulate whole of terms and relatIOns seems to affect the
conscious subject, but not the objects of which the subject is
conscious. I have the familiar sensation" of red, which develops
into a bull in a field; and this may well be an important event to
me, affecting my course across the field, without making any
impression upon the bull. The only reality which feelings can have,
it is thought, is in a consciousness; we do not think of the external
world as dependent upon feeling, unless we go so far as to say that
it is dependent upon being felt - unless, that is, we think of it as
the adjective of some transcendental self. On one SIde the history
of the world is the history of my experience, on the other my
experience itself is largely ideal, and requires the existence of
much which falls outside of itself. Experience is certainly more
real than anything else, but any experience demands reference to
something real which lies outside of that experience.
We may express the difficulty briefly in this way. In feeling. the
_the <:>liect <?ne: The object becomes an object by
its felt continuity with other feelings which fall outside of the
:finite centre, and the subject becomes a subject by its felt con-
tinuity with a core of feeling which is not related to the object.
But the point at which a line may be drawn is always a question
for partial and practical interests to decide. Everything, from one
point of view, is subjective; and everything, from another point of

On Our J(nowledge oj Immediate Experience
view, is objective, and there is no absolute point ofv-iew from which
a decision may be pronounced. Hence any l])s:tor-oLtM-P-r.DCeSS
must be only relativcl.y true: a side,
!l. bj ect, or a ect
I!'0r are one, ha. no
as
the:r.ejs nO point of v:ie':V frpm whI.ch.it can be inspected.
there are the two si<Jes, and objEEct, neither of
which is -really stable, independent, the measure of the other. In
order to consider how the one came to be as it is, we are forced to
attribute an artificIal absoluteness to the other. We observe, first,
the development of mind in an enVlronment which ex h2Jpothesi is
not dependent upon mmd; and second, in order to conceive the
development of the world, in the science of geology, let us say, we
have to present It as it would have looked had we, with our bodies
and our nervous systems, been there to see it. To say that the
world really was as we describe it, a million years ago, is a state-
ment which overlooks the development of mind. To say that
mind, in its beginnings in child or aborigine or animal, really was
as we describe it, is to commit oneself to a relative truth of the
same sort. In the same way in our theory of knowledge, when we
leave the moment of immediate experience, we are forced to
present our account either as the history of mind in its environ-
ment, or as the history ofthe world as it appears to mind.
vVhat I have said is in defence of the use of the word 'feeling'.
In describing immediate experience we must use terms which offer
a surreptitious suggestion of subject or obJect. If we say presenta-
tion, we think of a subject to' which the presentation is present
as an object. And if we say feeling, we think of it as the feeling of a
subject about an object. And this is only to make of feeling another
kind of object, a kind of object which will be discussed in a later
chapter. Nevertheless we can arrive at this metaphysical use of
the term feeling in its psychological and current use, and show
that <feelings" which are real objects in a world of object;, are
different from other objects, are feelings, because of their partici-
pation in the nature of feeling in this other sense. The feeling
r
On Our Knowledge of Immediate E{()perience
which is an object is feeling shrunk and H).o_ugh
ina-sense eipanded and developed as wen: shrunk because it is
the object of consciousness, narrower instead of wIder than
consciousness; expanded because in becoming an object it has
developed relations which lead it beyond itself.
\/ Although I speak of 'feelings' as shrunk and impoverished, I
do not admit that every feeling was at any stage the whole content
of consciousness. The majority of feelings have never succeeded
in invading our minds to such an extent _as completely to :fill it;
they have from first to last some not mean that
they are any the less intense for this, or that they disappear under
attention. A toothache, or a violent passIOn, is not necessarily
diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its
importance or insignIficance. To say that one part of the mind
suffers and another part reflects upon the suffering is perhaps to
talk in :fictions. But we know that those highly-organized beings
who are able to objectify their passions, and as passive spectators
to contemplate their joys and torments, are also those who suffer
and enjoy the most keenly. And most of us are able to give a
name to some of our feelings, to recognize in a vague way love and
hate, envy and admiration, when they arise in our own minds.
This naming of feelings, while it may give a very imperfect clue to
their nature, is nevertheless of the greatest importance. It is
obvious that we can no more explam a passion to a person who
has never experienced it than we can explain light to the blind.
But it should be obvious also that we can explain the passion
equally well: it is no more 'subjective" because some persons have
never experienced than light is subjective because the blind
cannot see. We can explain it by its relations, by its effect upon
the heart-beat, its toxic alterations of the system, by its effects in
conduct and social intercourse.YWithout these relations,
give the feeling its whatness, the feeling could not be said to exist.
Over and above all relations, it is true, the feeling must be a that,
merely there; although strictly speakmg not anywhere or at any
.. time. But this aspect of mere existence not distinguish
feeling specifically from any other object. No object is exhausted

by its relations, and this aspect of mere existence, in all objects
as well as feelings, is what we call immediate experience. This
aspect of immediacy, of bare existence, is a character of even the
most restricted feelings, though they may be at every moment
the object of consciousness as well:. '
We find our feelings, accordingly, on the one side to be ofthe
same nature as immediate experience, and on the other to present
no radical difference from other objects. 'Ve do not can the furni-
ture of our rooms "feelings' (unless we mean the mere presence of
appearances in our mind) and our ordinary speech declares that
two people may share the same feeling as well as regard the same
object. Yet we persist in believing that about feelings there is
something private, that we cannot 'know' them from the outside;
although we are compelled to admit that often an observer under-
stands a feeling better than does the person who experiences it.
So far as feelings are objects at all, they exist on the same footing
as other objects: they are equally public, they are equally in-
dependent of consciousness, they are known and are themselves
not knowing. And so far as feelings are merely felt, they are
neither sUbjective nor objective. Let us assume, for the moment,
that my experience may consist of one single feeling, and that
there is one object before me which I either love or hate. Adhering
to my own point of view, in which the feeling is merely felt (i.e., I
am not conscious of it), the feeling cannot be subj ective, for it
cannot be said to exist at all. For whom will my feeling be sub-
jective? For the dispassionate observer, who seeing the same
object without the same feeling, subtracts my feeling from the
object, to make ofit a separate and independent entity existing in
my mind. In other words, what is subjective is the whole world -
the whole world as it is for me - which, because it is (for me) the
whole world, cannot be contrasted with anything else "objective';
and equally truly nothing is subjective. There is no reason, so I
long as the one feeling lasts and pervades consciousness, why I
should cut off part of the total content and call it the object,
reserving the rest to myself under the name of feeling. It is only in
social behaviour, in the conflict and readjustment of :finite centres,
M
that feelings and things are torn apart. And after this separation
they leave dim and drifting edges, and tend to coalesce.
'. We must maintam, then, that in any cognition there is never
more than a practical separation between the object and that -
which apprehends it. The object stands out, if you will, against a
background of experience; and although it has relations which
fall outside of our experience. it is likewise an abstraction from
experience, continually capable of subtraction or addition. 'The
object before me is unstable and it moves so as to satisfy me ... I
insist that in addition to other influences (whose working I admit),
the object is moved also by that which is merely felt. There are
connections of content now actually present in feeling, and these
are able to jar with the object before me. And they are able further
to correct that obj ect by supplementation from themselves.'2
With the status of the feeling become objective I shall be
occupied in a later chapter; it is here only necessary to insist on
the validity of the continuous transition by which feeling becomes
object and object becomes feeling. important case of this
is sense-deceptio_n. resolution of of
sense may be found in a process of assimilation of feeling to a new
object, or in assimilation of object to feeling. In t.he case of
stick .in water, for example, the real object for the psychologist
may include not only the 'real' stick but an instance of refraction.
That the object in the illusion is quite as real as the 'real' object
is a truth to which the new realism has well called attention. The
new object and the false, we may add, are continuous, and the
new object has been constructed by adding to the old object
elements which were first experienced and not contemplated.
We are not here concerned with the absolute objective criterion
for the permanence and independence of any special class of
objects; it is enough if we can make clear that we have no im-
mediate distinction between object and feeling. It may accordingly
be said that the real situation is an experience which can never be
wholly defined as an object nor wholly enjoyed as a feeling, but in
which any of the observed constituents may take on the one or the
other aspect. The further question is this: to what extent can we
;
On Our J{nowledge Dj Immediate Experience
say that identity persists in such a change: to what extent may we
say that the felt feeling and the observed feeling are t:b.e same?
With the general questIon of identity we are not here concerned.
But between the special case of identity of which I speak and
identity in the usual sense there is a strikmg dIfference. The latter
is identity of objects (points of attention). This case is not the
identity of two feelings both objectified. It is the identity of some-
thing which is an object with something which is not. When the
difference is noted the very statement of the question will I think
provide the answer. There is, between the felt and the objectified '
feeling, a continuity which is not interrupted by any objective
difference; and so far as there is no perceived difference we may
assume the two to be the same.
This rather subtle question, which really belongs to a later part
of the discussion, is worth some little detall here. In considering
how far feeling may be an object (and may be known) we may ask
whether our conclusions will have a bearing upon experimental
psychology. We may say that if psychology sets up a sharp factual
line of demarcation between processes and things, and yet pro-
poses to investigate the former as objects of science, it is committed
to a contradiction. * Introspection can give us only terms, and not
processes. In the same way as the mathematical representation of
motion is and is not the same as the motion represented, so the
object in psychology is and is not the same as the process. And it
is only when psychology pretends to deal with something more
'subjective' or more philosophic than the subject-matter of any
other science that its pretensions lead it astray.
, J..r Y et to say that we have no knowledge of the process, of feeling
and the transition from the merely felt to the objectified would be
even more a vagary. The transition is not ~ . It is neither
wholly unconscious nor capricious, but is more or less a willed
change. The attention to the feeling presupposes that there is
such an object present, and that the attentIon has not manu-
factured the object (Truth and Reality, pp. 1 6 ~ ff.). So that in
* See Joachlffi, Mind 69, January 1909, and G. E. Moore and Dawes HlCks ln
Proc. Ari8t. Soc., 1909-10, on the subject-matter of psychology.
~ 6
On Our I(nowledge of Immediate Etrperience
attending to a sensation or feehng any change of which we are
aware besides the change felt in attending may be attributed to
the sensation or feeling and held to be independent of the atten-
tion; and if we are aware of no other change than the attention,
we may consider that any other change is meaningless.
The more fundamental aspect of the question, however, is this
(Truth and Reality, p. 169): 'In . of t):lat
emotion consists already of objects, of perceptions and ideas be-
And, the whole emotion being one, the special
group of feeling is united with these objects before my mind,
united with them integrally and directly though not objectively .
. . . when the object-part of our emotion is enlarged by further
perception or idea, the agreement or disagreement with what is
felt is not merely general and suffused, but is located through the
object in one special felt group. And this special connexion and
continuity with the object explains, I think, how we are able fur-
ther to transform what is observed by the addition of elements
from what is felt. There are features in feeling (this is the point)
which already in a sense belong to and are one with theIr,object,
since the emotion contains and unites both its aspects.' .
... '!]le error, then, would.consist in any sharp division between
enjoyment and contemplation, either in general or at any par-
ticular moment, or in treating the djstinction of feeling and object
as possible scientific may make the distinc-
tion between feeling of object and object of feeling, but it cannot
make a distinction between feeling and object as such. And now
we are in a better position to inquire into the situation (in order
to say relation) of feeling, thought and object in experience.
lIt will be recognized, first, that is
Relations can hold only between terms, and these terms can exist
only against the background of an experience which is not itself a
term. The objectified feeling of psychology does not exist apart
from the rest of feeling which is merely felt, no matter how negli-
gible that rest of feeling may appear. But within experience we
always find relations, and in this sense we may say that non-
relational experience does not exist. These relations, however, are

not experience, and while they Ilre experienced and therefore real,
they are not real as relations. Yet, just as relations, they seem to
be essential to reality. In this way a contradiction has 'broken out'.
'Feeling has a content, and this content is not consistent within
itself ... .'3 This situation it is wluch prompts us to pass on by new
construction to a larger felt whole in which the same puzzling
terms and relations appear. No experience is self-consistent,
because of the ideal aspects with which it is shot through. Yet
these ideal aspects are likewise real, and themselves issue from a
felt background:,
We may now go on to consider the place of consciousne.ss
experience. In order to understand to this
problem we must keep in mind two and apparently con-
tradictory aspects of the situation.vExperience, we have been
told, is not co-extensive with consciousness, but is wider. 'There
is an immediate feeling, a knowing and being in one, with which
knowledge begins' (Truth and Reality, p. 159). Feeling is more
than either object or subject, since in a way it includes both. On
the other hand, we must remember that the conscious subject,
as a construction, falls partly outside of any whole of feeling. 'The
finite content is necessarily determined from the outside.'4 We
must therefore expect to find consciousness to be both something
immediately given and something which would not be in the
immediate experience unless it also extended beyond it. Con-
:got an _ _ but an aspect, an
o( reality. Experience, we may and
.. JYhich is not--conscious. .And that this 'not
conscious' is not what we call 'unconscious' should be sufficiently
obvious:JFor what we term unconscious is simply an element in
experience which arises in contrast to other elements in experience:!
It refers either to certain supposed mental entities which guide or
influence our conscious actions. And I need not point out that
this use of the term is of very doubtful value. Undoubtedly our
mental life is directed by many influences of which we are not
conscious, and undoubtedly there is no clear line to be drawn
between that of which we are conscious and that which as 'feeling'
!tS
melts imperceptibly into a physiological background. But so far
as this fringe is contrasted with that which is actually conscious,
it is merely an object in our world like any other. And the 'un-
conscious' conceived merely as external objects is only the un-
feeling; it is the other side of experience and not the whole. The
unconscious, in short, denotes something within experience, as
the conscious does, and neither of these terms will represent the
whole.
At the beginning then consciousness and its object are onKSo
far we are in agreement with at least two schools of contemporary
philosophy.* We can say with James (Radical Empiricism, p. Q3)
'the instant ~ e l ~ of the present is ... only virtually or potentially
either subject or object'. Confining ourselves to this instant field
(which we must remember is only an abstraction) we grant that
no division can be found between an awareness and that of which
it is aware. We cannot allow Mr Russell's supposition of a 'con-
sciousness' which might merely exist for a moment and experience
a sensation of red. Tk ... ):ed' would simply be a 'neutral entity'
which might be taken as mental or physical accordmg to conte.xt,
butwhere there is no context there is neither mental nor physical._
What James calls the context is that of'whlch Bradley speaks when f
he says that the finite content is 'determined from the outside'.
This determination from the outside is unending. vln the :first'
place, there is my present physical constitution, which determines
the experience without being an element in it, and there is my
whole past, conceived either as the history of my body or as the
sequence of my conscious experiences, so far as I can detach them
from the objects in the experience, and consider them only as
adjectives of myself. And secondly, there are the nature and the
connections of the object, which fall outside ofthe present moment
of experience, and are discovered on closer scrutiny. A s we develop
subject and object side, they seem to approximate independence,
for the object is certainly independent of'this knower, and the
knower independent of any particular object: on the one side we
get souls or selves, on the other the physical universe. That
* And in oppositIon to Russell and Moore.
~ 9
On Our I{nowledge of Immediate Experience
objects are dependent upon consciousness, or consciousness upon
obj ects, we most resolutely denyYConsciousness, we shall find, is
reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to
be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness;
and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.
l
But if we attempt to put the world together again, after having
divided it into consciousness and objects, we are condemned to
\failure. We cannot create experience out of entities which are
'independent of experience. Nor could we be consclOUS at all unless
these ideal connections somehow entered into the experience,
breaking up its immediate unity. Yet the origmal unity - the
'neutral entity' - though transcended, remains, and is never
analysed away. In our perception of the red flower the original
mere red, in which awareness and awared are one, persists.
We can assert much more than seems implied in the last sen-
tence.vit is not merely 'in my experience' that the moment of
identity is essential. My existence is dependent upon my ex-
perience of red in the flower, and the existence of the flower is
dependent upon its unity in feeling (as red) with me. Whatever
relations the flower may after,vards be discovered to have, its
nature must be such that its being under these conditions ex-
perienced as red will be essential to the whole account of it. The
real :flower, we can say, will be the sum of its effects - its actual
effects upon other entities -and this sum must form a system, must
somehow hang together. And if we attribute to the :flower any
other reality besides these effects, which are actual only in ex-
periences, we are thrown back upon what it is for itself - i.e.,
upon its experience of itself. And here we only face the old diffi-
culties of subject and object over again in the form of pan-
psychism. To carry the problem to this point may be possible.
Neither attacking nor defending the pan-psychist view, I consider
it negligible. For if the existence of subject or object is always
relative, then the point to which we elaborate this relativity is a
matter of indifference.
Thus we conclusion that the only independent
reality is immediate seen that
fir
to think of feehng as subjective, as the mere adjective of a subject,
is only a common prejudice. So far as it is feeling and nothing more,
It is self-sufficient and demands no further supplementation. 'My'
feeling is certainly in a sense mine. But this is because and in so
far as I am the feeling. I do not in consequence know (in the sense
of understand) my own feeling better than does an outsider. If it
be objected that I must have a feeling in order to understand it,
the same may be said of every other 0 bj ect in the world.
Immediate B: ,,:hich is
not as such present elthex: anywhere or to anyorye. It is only in the
objects have ti!lle and space and By the
failure o(any- experience to be merely immediate, by its lack of
harmony and cohesion, we find ourselves as conscious souls in a
world of objects. __are led to the conception of an all-inclusive
experience outside of which nothmg shall fall. If anyone object
that mere experience at the beginning and complete experience at
the end are hypothetical limits, I can say not a word m refutation
for tills would be just the reverse side of what opinions I hold.
And if anyone assert that immedIate experience, at either the
beginning or end of our journey, is annihilation and utter night,
I cordially agree. would accept this inter-
pretation of his (Truth and Reality, p .. 188) 'positive non-dis-
whole' is not to be presumed. But the
ultimate nature of the Absolute does not come WIthin the scope
of the present paper. It is with some ofthe intermediate steps that
the following chapters are concerned.
31
CHAPTER II
On the Distinction of
'Real' and 'Ideal'
T
he conclusion of the preceding chapter has been that
reality as we may know it, the ultimate criterion which
gives meaning to our judgments of existence, is so far as it
appears at ail, our experience, yet an experience which only to a
certain extent - from a certain necessary but untenable point of
view-is 'ours'. As a development andin support of this conclusion,
we are driven to question the status of those elements within
experience which exist only by virtue of their reference to other
elements which are, in that reference, real, and we shall come to
the conclusion that the apparently fundamental separation
between the real and the ideal is but tentative and provisional, a
moment in a process. This conclusion is nothing new; it is no
novelty even m the essay which I shall chiefly quote, that on
'Floating Ideas and the Imaginary'* (Mind, October 1906); itis
familiar to students of Hegel. I can only plead that I seem to find
it constantly neglected or misinterpreted. Accordingly, after a
general statement of the theory, I shall attempt to make the
position clearer by criticism of such systems as would do without
this theory, and shall try to show its full importance in the thought
of Mr Bradley. Afterwards I shall attempt to point out some un-
developed consequences for the theory of objects, in regard to
unreal and imaginary objects, 'intended' objects, and process
(act) as object. The whole discussion, needless to say, is bound up
very closely with that of perception and judgment, which will
Immediately follow.
* Reprinted in Truth and Reality.
82
On the Distinction of <Real' and <Ideal'
The theory, in its general terms, is stated in Appearance,
Chapter XXIV. 'There is a view which takes, or attempts to take,
sense-perception as the one known reality. And there is a view
which endeavours, on the other side, to consider appearance in
time as something indifferent .... We have seen that the separa-
tion of the real into idea and existence is a division admissible
only within the world of appearance .... In order to be fact at all,
each presentatlOn must exhibit ideahty ... But the union in all
perception of thought with sense, the co-presence everywhere in
all appearances of fact with ideahty - this is the one foundation
of truth.' And further, 'when an idea qualifies the universe, how
can it be excluded from reality?' (Appearance, pp. 334-5.)
The ordinary view of the relation of real and ideal I take to be
this. We are given in 'experience' something called fact which is
real because independent, and independent because real. This
fact is not necessarily fact of sense perception, or of physical
reality, but the fact may be itself an idea from an external point
of view, an idea placed in reality. And the objection that a fact is
always an objective, and not simply a that, does not in the popular
view militate against its independence. The fact may appear Wlth
its fullest development of definition, with innumerable stipula-
tions of relationship, yet we 'apprehend' It as independent, and
proceed to erect between it and its percipient an abstraction
called thought, the existence of which is its reference to reality.
And popular epistemology then asks us to accept the elaborated
and sophisticated object as 'real', and yet to maintain the proviso
that all the positive qualifications which make it just what it is
are products of the 'activity of thought'. In other words, the
popular theory of knowledge, from which our plulosophies spring,
is realistic and nominalistic at the same time. That this is a just
description I think there will be little question, and whatever
direction our solutions take, I doubt whether we ever wholly
escape the crude antithesis.
Now there are several ways in which this difficulty IS escaped or
evaded. The simplest is that of sensation and thought, or, as in the
Kantian philosophy, the distinction between an external reality
c ~ tKL
On the Distinction oj 'Real' and' Ideal'
from which we receive material, and the formative activity of con-
sciousness. This distmctlOn -ultimately that between activity
and paSSIvIty - vnIl serve to classIfy a vast number of systems,
both IdealIshc and realistic, for I am not satisfied merely that the
distinction should be finally transcended, but wish to enquire
into ItS validIty as a starting point So that a conational psychology
such as that of 1\11' Alexander, or of LIPpS - any psychology
which deals with 'processes' as its subject-matter - will fall into
a class with such an idealism as was recently advocated by Pro-
fessor Adams. * And the second attItude IS that of psychologists
such as Stout, who would make a sharp distmction between con-
tent and object, and between psychical and physical object. ** This
I believe is the more usual attitude in psychology. And again there
is the view of those who would reduce everything to object and
immediate apprehension, reducing the 'activity' of thought to a
minimum, as Meinong, Russell, or Miss \\Todehouse.
These views it will be necessary to criticize, but without some
elaboration ofthe point of view from which these criticisms will be
made, what I have to say may appear inconsequent and negative.
The common complaint, accordingly, lodged against all these
views, is that it does not matter from what point of view or with
what data you start, you wIll, If you do not stop arbitrarily, come
to one conclusion, and whether or no psychology has the right to
stop, whether psychology IS independent of metaphysics, will
be one of the questions involved. And, according to this view,
activity and passivity, immediacy and mediation, acquaintance
and description, will be transcended in the process of completion
of our knowledge. In the words of Mr Bosanquet :*** 'we shall ...
meet, with uncompromising resistance, the attempt to take any
form of immediateness, understood as excluding mediation, for an
absolute and reliable datum, whether m the form of an object of
simple apprehension, called by the name of fact, or in the form of
an indeterminate creative impulse called by the name of life, or in
* Philos. Rev., 1913.
** See his controversy wlth Mr J oseph.
*** Prin. of Indiv. and Value, p. 13.
34
On the Distinction Dj (Reat> and (I dear
the form of a subject of experience, impervious and isolated,
called by the name of "self" '.
The first pomt to be made is that the difference between real
and ideal is in a sense an ideal difference. It is created within a
limited sphere of meaning and recognizable only WIthin that
sphere. If we would recognize a difference between realIty and its
attributes, we must have become aware of the fact of error, and of
alterations of content m relation to the same intended object. 'liVe
become aware that we have intended a realIty, that we have,
within our experience, delimited a field as real; that we have
brought this field into relation with ourselves: and in error and in
alterations of content we come to consider meaning as another
reality beside that which It intends. This discovery must be
qualified in two ways. First, the reality which we have intended is
an ideal constructlOn. It is not realIty as a whole, but the radia-
tion from a particular and indefinable point; a field of quite
uncertain extent, assumed and selected. And second, the idea
with which this reality IS qualified IS itself real, though of area hty
which we cannot pOSSIbly define, for, though its existence as a
fact is another thmg from its meanmg, yet Its meamng IS inextri-
cably mvolved in its existence as a fact. The Idea is something real,
or it could not be even ideal; and on the other hand the reality to
which it refers IS an ideal realIty, cut orr, in a sense, and Isolated;
for the attribution of an idea to realIty as such is not within our
power. On the other hand, the realIty intended tends to identify
itself with the content of the idea; and on the other hand this
content pretends to Identify itself wlth reahty. WIthout the ideal
aspect of the real the distinction would be impossible. And unless
the idea were itself real it would be unable to relate itself to
reality.
But how, it will be said, will these statements be reconciled with
the previous assertions that reality is experience? You have first
defined reality as experience, and have then declared experience to
be indefinable: you now pretend that we have always before us an
ideal fragment which ,ve call reality, and of which we predicate the
ideal. Are not the two statements hopelessly at variance? If the
B5
On the Distinction of (Real' and (Ideal'
first statement about reality is true, how can the second reality
be real in any sense; and have we not rather a wholly imaginary
world of imaginary predications completely cut off, as far as our
knowledge and acquaintance goes, from the reality upon which
you have insisted?
In order to reply to this objection, in which the whole realistic
position is implied, it will be necessary to dispose of a difficult
prejudice. The real and the ideal (including the unreal) are not
two separate groups of objects. Nor, as we shall see, can they be
dlstinguished as object and 'process' or 'act'. Neither the absolute
real nor the absolute ideal can as such enter mto discourse; it is
only when two entities 'take of each other" so to speak, that either
of them can be real or ideal. Reality is simply that which is in-
tended and the ideal is that which intends; and ultimately - for
we have no reason to stop - the intending is the totality of
intending, and the intended is the whole of reahty. This whole of
reality, of course, Wlll as discussed present both real and ideal
aspects, but this differentiation in what should be simple will fall
outside of our metaphysics (Appearance, p. 352). It is inclusive
with reference to our system, and that is all that we require. *
The division of real and ideal into two groups of objects is an
action of a natural and inevitable tendency. As we shall later urge,
an object is simply that to which we attend, and we cannot attend
to process or ldea without making it to that extent an object. But,
just as no object is wholly object, so we can, by constant correction
and discretion, to some degree handle idea wlthout reducing it
wholly to object. In the first place, we must remember that the
distinction of real and ideal is one that does not arise until the
ideal is recognized as having a reality of its own, apart (in a sense)
from its meaning; and yet as preserving its identity in this new
aspect. WIthout the 'Mitmensch' (fellow man) and our introjection
the question ofideahty would never arise. It is easy to mistake the
issue here, and to say that the idea is simply not recognized. We
... 'Wherever the idea can be merely one aspect [Italics mine 1 of a single presenta-
tion, there we can say that the ideal content eXists, and is an actual event.'
'&'ppearance, p. 352.
36
On the Distinction of' Rear and' Ideal'
can Imagine a sohtary autochthon, yet gifted with reason and, if
you hke, with some power of expression, making judgments, qUlte
unaware of their ideal relation to the realIty intended. And for
this hermit, as a centre of experience, these judgments win simply
not come into question - the question as to their existence will
be one to which there IS no answer, elther affirmative or negative.
And this IS everywhere the case, that until the ideal is recogmzed
as real, It is not even ideal. And I use the word 'recognize' with this
in view: the idea as idea (as meaning) is neither existent nor non-
existent, and could we consistently keep to this internal view It
would not be real. It will be said, I know, that the externalIty oHhe
idea is imphed in its internahty. But this implication exists only
for a point of view which contains both points of view.
With these considerations in mind, let us return to the dis-
cussion of the relation of RealIty as subject, to reality as the
fragment to which predicates are assigned. -!< In any case of
judgment or perceptIOn something is assumed to be real, and this
something is a background of indefinite extent continuous with
the content which is asserted of it. The background has ideal
characteristics which are rather felt than predicated, and which
are capable of indefinite transmutation in a more and more
inclusive view. This proVIsional reality has, on the one hand, the
character of an ideal construction, for it is a sphere in which our
ideal activity has been exercising itself; and on the other hand it
is apart from the particular idea at the moment and under the
aspect of predication. It is, in contrast with that idea, accepted; and
the ideal aspect of it is for the occasion negligible, in contrast
with the particular idea with which we are engaged. Thus, of
course, an idea may justly be predicated of an ideal world; and
our interpretation of the character of Ivanhoe may qualify the
assumed reality of the story just as truly as the story itself, as a.
story, qualifies reality. The ideal world of the story qualifies
reality - in what way, we are ultimately in ignorance - and
* 'It would be impossible that any man should have a world, the variOUS
provInces of whIch were qUlterahonallyconnected, or appeared always In system ..
He means, from time to time, by reality some one regIOn of the Real. whICh
habitually he falls to dIstinguIsh and define.' .4ppemance, p. 325.
37
On the Distinction qf <Real' and (Ideal'
through tlus world our conceptIOn of the character of Ivanhoe is
attached to reality. The question of imaginary and unreal objects
belongs to a later part of the discussIOn. There is however one
objection lrkely to be raised at tlus pomt, related to that question.
The objection is this: the assertIOn that reality is always the sub-
ject is in apparent conflict with the fact of judgments in which
reality is a predicate. In the judgment 'X is real' is reality the
subject? The answer is this: In this Judgment the subject is not a
presentation which we call real or leave in the void. It is already
largely placed and determined. It is already predicated of a world
which has two spheres, and the question is: through which of the
two it shall be related to the whole. The titular subj ect is already
real, and the adJectival realrty is only the assertion of one sphere
m which it belongs. Yet in the course of the assertion the nature
of the subject has altered. If the reality which we assert is the
reality of ghosts, then the ghost as potential subject, previous to
the judgment, is not the same ghost as that with which we emerge.
The latter is a real ghost; and how can we say that the content of
a real ghost is not different from that of an imagined or merely
presented ghost? The subject, then, cannot have been the ghost,
and the predicate cannot have been reality; for, on the one
hand, the subject of a judgment cannot be altered by the judgment,
and on the other hand, the predicate must add something to our
knowledge - and we knew already that the ghost was in some
sense real.
With the connecbon between the predication inside the proposi-
tion and the predication referring to the subject outside the
judgment I shall be concerned later. I must call attention here,
however, to the fact that the idea which is prewcated of reality is
not the content of a single word. The statement that ghosts are
real is not, as we have seen, the predicating ghosts of reality. An
idea is never given in a single word (,only in the sentence does the
word first acquire actuallrfe and bemg' *) when that word is an ele-
ment in a judgment and not in itself the expression of a judgment.
* See Jerusalem, p. 28: 'Das Wort, . gewmne erst im Satze
wlrkhches Leben und Sem ' and passim, for relation of word to idea.
SS
On the Distinction of t Real' and (Ideal'
The fact that words are always used in the expression of ideas, and
are remembered and placed by attachment to a more or less
indefinite group of ideas in which they have been used, may lead
us to regard ideas as the meaning of words. Now there IS a decIded
difference. C'The Isolated substantive name lacks the positing there-
in of a subject, and hence it cannot be presented here, at the locus
of perception, as a livmg source of mulhfanous activity .... It will
be seen that the meanmgs of Isolated words must be so presented,
as ifnothmg in perception corresponded to them, they are founded
purely on the articulate sounds we make, and III thiS alone possess
a basis for their existence.'*) A vfOrd, it is true, may mean or stand
for, an idea. But there will never obtain an identity between the
meaning of the word as concept, and the meanmg of the word as
idea As an Idea it is predicated of reality, assigned a place in a
system - more or less complete - which is assumed as rea1. But the
concept - greenness, or triangularity - does not as such quahfy
reality at all. It is, in itself, neither real nor unreal The meanmg of
a concept always exceeds the Idea, and is of virtually indefinite ex-
tension. When we predicate the reality of ghosts, for example, we
qualify reality, an ideal reality abstracted from the whole, by the
idea of real ghosts; and this idea mcludes, on one sIde, much more
than the word or concept ghost. The ghost conceived as real is a
special kind of content with characteristics continuous with those
of the fragment of reahty in which he is set, the idea, from one
point of view apart from the world and attached to it, yet con-
tains already the character of the world, a world, as I said before,
which shows by the very fact that that idea can be attached to it
that it is somehow prepared for the reception ofthat Idea.
In this way I make the distinction between concept and idea.
* Getber, Sprache 'It. Erkennen, pp. 102-3, IS clear as to the unpresentablhty
(Un'Vorstellbarkeit) of the word: 'Es fehlt dem lSoherten nomen substantlvum
dleR. dass m ihm em SubJekt gesetzt 1St, und so kann es mcht hi er. an dem wahr-
genommenen Orte vorgestellt werden als lebendlge Quelle mehrfacher Thdhgkelt,
Man sieht, dass dIe Bedeutungen der Isoherten Worter so vorgestellt werden
mussen, wie Ihnen in der iYahrnehmung mchts entsprlcht; sle grunden sleh
ledighch auf unsere Sprachlaute und haben nur an dlcsen den Boden fur ihr
Dasem.'- I fall to find, however, a clear dlstmcbon between concept and idea
on the one hand, and Idea and image on the other.
39
The idea is the total content which we mean about reality in any
particular presentation. It is not purely or even primarily psycho-
logical, for Its meanmg is essential (and meaning, as I shall have
occasion to consider later, does not as such form an object for
psychology); and furthermore, its meaning partially coincides
with the realIty which it intends. ~ o r IS the idea purely a logical
entity, since it always, in the end, comes to occupy a particular
place in a real world. The concept, on the other hand, while it may
in a sense -loosely, as I think - be called ideal, IS not to be
confounded 'with the ideality of the idea, and indeed in contrast
with the idea had much better be called real. * The concept, in the
first place, is extra-mental; It exceeds all actual and possible
content, or definition. Nothing can secure you against the possi-
bility that new expenence may add to the meaning by extending
the use. And properly speaking, a concept cannot be defined at
all, for to define It is to restnct it to a definite circle of ideas. So
far as it IS thus identified with these ideas it ceases to be a concept;
so far as it IS present and practical, it IS used to stand for a (not
wholly definite) group of ideas. In thIS way we come mistakenly to
identify the concept w1th one or several of its related ideas - to
consider it as appearance as well as reality. And it is true that
realIty exists only through its appearances. It is only in some sense
in ideas that concepts exist; and, in a sense, the pointing of the
ideas at the concept constitutes the reality of the concept; its
reality consists of the self-transcendence of ideas.
I am not confident that these definitions are valid ones, but
they attempt to avoid Bradley's confusion of concepts with ideas,
and Moore's confusion of ideas with concepts. Moore's ctlticisms
ofthe passages in Bradley have however a certain force. 'Now to Mr
* Professor HoemIe ('Image, Idea, and J\Ieanmg,' p. 90) makes the following
distinctIOn between the real and the ideal: '1. In the first pJace, the contrast
between Idea and realIty IS taken to be a contrast between present realIty and
somethmg "hlch m some sense or another IS "not present". Thus the past and the
future are usually saId to be "Ideal" as agamst the realIty of present experIence; and
again m vohbon we have the opposItIon between my present state and an Idea of
change, the "realIzatIOn" of whIch would satisfy me. 9. Secondly, reality as con-
trasted WIth Idea, is more particularly identIfied WIth sense perception.' - But I do
not find thIS classification adequate; and It makes no place for the concept.
40
Bradley's argument that "the idea in judgment is the universal
meaning" I have nothing to add.' But he says further, '1 shall in
future use the term "concept" forwhatMr Bradley calls a "universal
meaning"; since the term "idea" is plainly full of ambiguities,
whereas "concept" and its German equivalent BegriJ! have been
more nearly appropriated to the use in question.' This concept he
substitutes for idea in such a use as the following: ' ... that the "idea
used in judgment" is not a part of the content of our ideas, nor
produced by any action of our minds, and that hence truth and
falsehood are not dependent on the relation of our ideas to
reality' where the idea used in judgment is properly an idea and
not a concept.
5
Both Bradley and Moore make but one distinction
- that between a psychical idea and a logical idea. Russell
(Problems, p. 99) makes a similar distinction: in 'the sense in
whlCh it denotes the object of an act of thought, whiteness is an
"idea". Hence, if the ambiguity is not guarded against, we may
come to think that whiteness is an "Idea" in the other sense, i.e.
an act of thought; and thus we come to think that whiteness is
mental.'
Bosanquet (Essentials, p. 74) hardly differs: ' "Idea" has two
principal meanings. (a) A psychical presentation and (b) An
identical reference.'
It should be immediately evident that the idea in Bradley's
judgment is a very different thing from the concept in ]'vfoore's.
We do not in judgment, certainly, simply predicate of reality the
content, or part of the content, of a so-called 'mental state'. So
far we are all in accord. In 'Caesar crossed the Rubicon' the idea
is just as 'external' as the reality of which it is predicated. But the
idea in question is not a concept, but something of indefinite
complexity. Caesar's crossing the Rubicon (the objective) ha.s, as
we consider it, elements which attach it more a.nd more in one way
or another to the real. The movement is not SImply the movement
of an idea toward reality; but the real comes to join itself, by
presenting ideal aspects which are also real, to the self-realizing
idea. The idea was never at any moment of the process detached
and 'Hoating'. In being an idea at all, it must mean to be real; it is
41
On the Distinction oj'Real' and 'Ideal'
no more mental than the reality to which it is attached; Its
ideahty consists in its meamng, and cannot be considered as a
quality or mark by which it may be distingUished from the real.
Hence, m the judgment above instanced the idea IS the whole
reality meant - and I shall try to show later, the whole meaning
is ultImately the whole of reality.
It is at once apparent that neither of the definitions used by
Bosanquet is adequate for Idea in this sense. This is rather what
idealIsts are accustomed to call 'ideal content'. Content is as
eqmvocal a word as any, but I cannot see that any distinction is
introduced by using 'ideal content' instead of idea. The idea
predicated of realIty is not part of any 'content'* nor is It com-
posed of simpler Ideas. It is meanmgless, I think, to speak of the
'content' of the ldea: is the content al1ythmg but the idea itselP
for so far as the content is discrepant with the idea, I cannot see
that it is the content of that idea.
There are here several issues:
1. the relation of idea to mental content
92. the relation of idea to image
3. the relation of idea to concept and speech
4. the relation of idea to identical reference
Let us consider the last question first. I wish to distinguish idea
from g and from 4, and g and 4 from each other. Fixed reference is
thus manipulated by Bosanquet (Logic, I, p. 69): ' ... the idea, as
used in judgment, is a general signification, or in other words, a
fixed reference. And because fixed, it is limited; limited to portions
of content which serve as indices of the reference, and are com-
patible with psychical accompaniments that vary with the series of
images.'
The essence of an idea, for Bosanquet, seems to be that it
should refer to something (Essentials, p. 75: the identity which
two people mean to mean when they say 'Saint Paul's Cathedral'
is the idea). What, in this case, is the ldea ;> It is hardly the actual
* Bosanquet, LogiC, I. p. 44; '1 ... shall follow Mr Bradley m usmg "ldea" for
a fixed content or logical meamng, not for the psychIcal Images which pass through
the mind and never recur .... '
On the Distinction oj (Rear and (Ideal'
object meant - the object is that to which the ldea refers. It is
not the word or sound 'Cathedral', nor is it the intention of the
two people to refer to the same thing, it IS the fact of their
reference to the same thmg. And ' ... the content of this reference
is the object of our thought'.6 Now the ldea, in thIs sense, can
hardly be the idea whlch IS predicated of reality. It is (Essentials,
pp. 78-9) a 'concrete hablt or tendency', a 'selectIve rule', and
agam it is a thing ('mental umt or image') which stands for some-
thmgelse.*
The idea predIcated of reality cannot be elther a 'mental
presentatIOn' or a conation, nor can it be simply a meaning - for
a meaning always means to be somethmg more than a meaning.
It is not certainly a compound of simpler elements. Bradley is
clear on thIs pomt (Logic, p. 1 ~ ) : 'We may say ... that all
(judgments) have but one (Idea). We take an ideal content, a
complex totality of qualities and relations, and we then introduce
divisions and distmctions, and we call these products separate
ideas with relations between them And this is quite unobjection-
able. But what is objectionable, is our then proceeding to deny
that the whole before our mind is a single ldea .... The relations
between the ideas are themselves ideal. ... And the whole in whlCh
they subsist is ideal, and so one idea'. There is here a fixed I eference
in the sense that the idea aims to be (though any expreSSIOn one
can use will remain a metaphor) a realIty, and the latter, as real,
is independent of its relations. The fixity of the reference is not
the character of fixity of meaning which the words have In
language, nor is its fixity due to a composltIon of these fixities. It
is not as if I took a number of sentence elements which have each
an identity of reference and compounded them into a whole which
has an identity by virtue of the mgredlent identities. The idea,
though largely dependent for Its existence upon the forms of
its expression, must yet not be confused with these forms. The
idea is that reality whiCh I intend, and the identity is only the
* Mr Bosanquet says (Essenttals, p. 79) 'Mere mental facts, occurrences 111 my
mental history, taken as sllch, cannot enter mto judgment'. But I should ask
whether the so-called mental facts are mental at all, and "hether they do not enter
into judgment just as do any other 'non-mental' facts.
43
assumption of one world; it is not the characteristic of it as idea,
but as world.
The idea, and its predication of reality, may exist previous to
the articulation oflanguage. It is not true that language is simply
a development of our ideas; it is a development of reality as well.
The idea is developed from within, as language shows a richness
of content and intricacy of connections which it assumes to have
been really there, but which are as well an enrichment of the reality
grasped. 'Wherever there is an appreciation of a presentation and
a relating of it to the subject's world there is an idea and a
judgment: and this is practically universal. The sea-anemone
which accepts or rejects a proffered morsel is thereby relating an
idea to the sea-anemone's world. The fixity is simply this reference
to a definite place in the world - a world which is built up from
the subject's point of view. This, for the subject, is the only
world, but it is not a solipsistic world, for it is not contrasted
with any other possible world.
These remarks have been directed against such an interpreta-
tion of Bosanquet's definition as would infer that the idea, as
ldea, detached from its realIty, need mean the same thing for
various subjects. 'Saint Paul's' might retain its full fixity of
meaning for me if everyone else meant by the same term, let us
say 'Notre-Dame'. There would, of course, be contradiction in my
world which I should have to rectify in one way or another; but
the social consilience goes toward the construction of our world
and not toward the definition of idea.
It is in this sense, then, that idea involves identical reference.
The inquiry brings us consequently to the relation of idea to its
articulated content and to the concept. The idea in predication is
not necessarily of definite extent; it may be extended or narrowed
or analysed. We are familiar with the objection 'but you imply
much more than this' - or 'but you mean no more than -' and
sometimes are immediately aware of an expansion or contraction
of our idea. And again the idea may be analysed into component
ideas. In the example which Bradley has given (Logic, pp. 1 ~ - 1 3 )
we may first have an idea wolf-eating-larnb, and from this we separ-
44
ate the ideas, let us say, of wolf, of lamb, and perhaps further, of
eating. And this fact would at first seem to controvert what I have
said, above (p. 38), for we seem to have an Idea for each word. I
should reiterate the distinction between word as concept and
word as idea. There may be, m a sense, degrees of Ideality and con-
ceptuality. In all judgment, even of the simplest sort, there IS In-
volved recognition. The actual idea judged, it is true, is unique, or
the judgment would not be made, but the judgment IS made only
through universal connections In the cruder perceptIOn, wolf-
eating-lamb, these connections are few and indlstinct; in the de-
veloped knowledge we notice elements m this one idea which can
be Isolated through their relation to elements m other judgments,
and which attain the status of ideas by brmgmg these relations
with them to the particular case, so that the result is that a com-
plex of connections is present in the particular perception or
judgment, and besides bemg evoked by the Idea, tends Itself to
become an ldea and be judged about. And for this idea the one
word (wolf, if you like) may stand. Yet It is a mutilation of connec-
tions to say that the one word stands for this 'Idea'. For it. does so
only by vlrtue of its close connectIOn Wlth a number of more pri-
mary ideas. The wolf has become a reahty percelved or judged, on
a higher plane, as wolf-eating-Iarnb was in cruder knowledge, and
this evolution of the Idea can go on to the degree of abstraction
upon which we find it practicable to live. This, then, is an idea 'of
higher order" composed out oflower ideas and capable of entering
as an ingredient in more particular ideas which are predicated of
reality. The ideas of higher order are themselves less frequently
predicated, for obvious reasons; their existence usually implies
their assumption as ideal elements of realit.y (Kraftcentra). And
these ideas of higher order, in their turn upon a higher plane, may
be elements, rather felt than judged, in judgments of higher order,
which in their own way are like the primitive judgments attributing
a total situation to reality. *
* These levels of idea and judgment correspond, of course, to the levels of
experience referred to In the essay of Bradley, used above ('On Our Knowledge of
ImmedIate ExperIence').
45
VVe have marked briefly the steps in the development of general
Ideas. And we find that the generality of an idea is a matter of
degree; every perception involves some degree of recognition and
the operation of a universal. Accordingly we must now ask, what
is the dlfference between such a general idea and a concept? I
define concept (see pp 39-40) as that which a word denotes, and
idea (or general idea) as that to which a word refers in reality,
this reference being contmgent. And a concept, as I have said
(p. 40) IS a tiling-in-itself, it can be suggested, rather than defined,
through more and more general ideas, but is at no point to be
identified with these ideas. The concept It is of which the word is
properly the sIgn or symbol. I am in partial agreement with
Sigwart (1, p. 4 ~ ) : 'Words are generally held to be signs of
CONCEPTS. But a Concept in the logical sense is a work of art, pro-
duced by a conscious elaboration of our ideas in which its
characteristics are analysed and its definition fixed, and it is the
work of logic to help us to attain to the ideal state in which words
represent such Concepts ' Of course I should be unwilling to admit
that a concept is a "work of art' or that it is in any way created
by thought, or that greenness, triangularity, or to the right of, is
"produced by a conscious elaboration of our ideas'. There is no
meanmg, so far as I can see, m saying either that the concept is
created or that it is 'eternal'. In a sense, concepts are omnipresent,
and in a sense, they are never known at all. We have, in the
simplest case in which a concept appears, an intuitive knowledge
of it (if one likes to talk of intuition), and on the other hand as I
say, beyond intUItive "knowledge' we know the concept only
through ideas - through its appearances. And we must not
confuse the development of the language with development in
concepts; for it would, I think, be more apt to say that the de-
velopment of language is the history of our exploration of the
world of concepts. The goal of language is in this sense unattain-
able, for it is simply that of a complete vocabulary of concepts,
each mdependent of the rest; and all of which, by their various
combinations, would glve complete and final knowledge - which
would, of course, be knowledge without a knower.
46
On the Distinction of' Real' and Ideal'
If tms be true, how are we to estimate Mr Moore's assertion
that 'a proposition is composed of concepts'? He accepts Bradley's
statement that the idea m Judgment is the umversal meaning,
but we have interpreted tlns ulllversal l11ealllng and Bosanquet's
'fixed' or 'ldentical' reference as an ideal reality in the form of
universal connections; and not as the concept. Mr Moore postu-
lates the ultimate vocabulary of which I have spoken. Once given
thls vocabulary of concepts, it would be quite true to say, as
Moore does say (.il1ind 1899, p. 1 8 ~ ) , 'the world is formed of con-
cepts. These are the only objects of knowledge. A thmg becomes
intelligIble first when it is analysed into lts constituent concepts.'
For It is true that the concept is reality and the idea appearance,
and I should almost agree that the concept IS the only object of
knowledge. But I defy Mr Moore to show a case of a concept which
IS actually known, and if he presents cases of such, I am certain
that he has taken the shadow for the substance, the idea for the
concept. It is true that eXlstence (for which we substItute here
reality) is itself a concept and true that we can define reality only
by a reference to truth - for tIlls only means that our only
cnterion for the degree of reality of a glVen appearance is the
criterion of consistency and inclusiveness; It certainly does not
mean that because reality lS a concept It IS known. What collateral
can Mr Moore put up on behalf of such' knowledge' ?
We have thus seen in what way an idea is an identical reference
and in what way it is related to the concept: the idea may precede
the articulate thought, and likewise the concept may be said as an
existent to precede thought, although its eXlstence IS not kno,VD.
of until late in the development of language. I turn accordingly to
consider the relation of idea to lmage and mental presentatlOn,
and to the aspect of idea as a mental sign or symbol. And here I
find serious dLfnculties "'with Mr Bradley's views, difficulties which
may be due to my own obtuseness, but in which I seem to find my
objection supported by the objections of 1\11' Moore and 1\1r
Hoernle. 'For logical purposes ideas are symbols, and they are
nothing but symbols (Logic, p. 3) .... A symbol has 1. existence;
!t. content. By a sign we understand any sort of fact which is
47
On the Distinction of t Real' and t Ideal'
used wIth a meamng. The meaning may be part of the original
content, or it may have been dIscovered or even added by a further
extenSIOn .... P. 4: A sign is any fact that has a meaning, and
meaning consists of a part of the content, original or acquired, cut
oft', fixed by the mind, and considered apart from the existence
of the sign. '7
In what sense is an idea a sign? This seems a most treacherous
statement. A sign has its existence beside its content, and it is just
this separate existence - the fact that the sign might be mis-
interpreted or simply not recognized as a sign at all, which makes
it a sign and not an identity. Take some of the examples of sign
which Bradley mentions. A flower may become the sign or symbol
of an emotion; the fox is the symbol of cunning. The meaning of
these signs consists in a part of the content (original let us
concede in the case ofthe fox, acquired in the case of the flower)
cut oft' and considered apart'. Now does an idea refer to reality as
fox refers to cunning? The quality to which the fox or the flower
refers is something known or knowable otherwlse than through
the fox or the flower. And trus is the case even when the sign is not
fox in general, but as, let us say, when a withered flower is the sign
of a particular moment in our history. The flower may be the only
reminder we have of this moment, but it is in fact because of its
essential heterogeneity with the event that it is able to replace
itself and us with it, in the past. A flower may be the sign of an
idea, but how can an idea be the sign of a reality? Such a view
would surely lead us to a representational theory of knowledge.
The idea certainly has a sort of existence apart from the reality
to whieh it refers, but the apartness is of a special sort and may
easily be misunderstood. There mayor may not be a mental
content beside the meaning, but Mr Hoernle is certainly right in
holding the meaning to be no part of this content (op. cit., p. 74):
'We have nothing to qualify reality with except the contents of
our minds, our imagery, which we "divorce" and 'cut loose"
from its existence in the mind so as to weave a garment for reality
out of it.' The meaning is the idea, and the idea may be con-
tinuous with or in a sense dependent upon 'mental content',
48
On the Distinction oj (Real' and (Ideal'
but so far as it is idea, is distinct therefrom. We must ask then (1)
in what way idea is not that which it means, and ( ~ ) in what way
it is not the 'mental' Images and conditions.
The contrast between meamng and reality is not so apparent
when the reality mtended is a present sense perception as in some
other cases. In memory, for example, or anticipation, there may
be the consciousness of an intended reality and of a present
meaning which are not co-existent in time. The reality is there,
and the 'mental state' here. And inasmuch as thIs present state
may omit the greater part of what was present to the reality
which is remembered, and may likewise add or distort, we are
accustomed to form in imagination the notion of a perfect idea of
the past experience identical in content with the experience itself,
and dIffering only in that it is present as a memory instead of past
as an experience. The effort of memory, in this case, would be to
idenhfy itself with the past experience, and the completion of the
process would be hallucination. This I suppose is the natural
view - based upon comparison of cases of greater and less success
in recollection - but it is simply a tissue of contradiction. It
assumes, in the first place, that memory is always of images,
whereas it is frequently of objectives, which may tend, it is true,
to reinstate the imaginal conditions of the experience, but which
may be independent of these conditions both for appearance and
for certitude. And it may assume in the second place, a reinstate-
ment of objects III a way which implies a point of view which was
never actual. '''That we attend to in perception is one group of
objects, what we attend to in memory is a different group: not,
as in perceptIOn, the object as in itself it really is, but Its Image.
Not that there are two distinct entities, the object and its Image
- the difference is not one of physical objects, but of intended
objects. In perception we intend the object; in recollection we
intend a complex which is composed of image and feeling. We
do not intend to remember simply the object, but the object as we
remember it. And this new object is much more tILe etcperienee
than the past object, for we try to remember how we felt toward the
past object.
D
49 E.K.E.
It will be said: this feeling-object whlCh we intend is simply a
moment m the reinstatement of the total situation, the consum-
mation of which operation would be the presence of the object as
object and of the feehng as feelmg. To recall feelmg we are often
told, is merely to live It over; it cannot be known or remembered,
but only felt. And to tills objection we can retort that hallucina-
tIOn is not the satisfaction and consummation of memory, but its
disease. And so far as the feelmg is merely felt, so far as the sltua-
tion is merely lived over agam, it is not a case of memory at all.
We are attemptmg to recall, let us say, a public address which we
have heard. If memory were simply a restoration of the past, we
might expect to recall first the words or fragment of the sentences
whlCh the speaker uttered, rather than the sense which we
extracted therefrom. For these sounds which he uttered take
precedence in time of the meaning; the meaning, to use Meinong's
phrase, is a zeitverteilter Gegenstand, and the fact that we recall
the meaning, in most cases, before we recall the actual words,
would imply that the past presents itself in a different time-order
than that of the objective time in which the events are held to
have taken place. Now in most cases the meaning is what we want;
Ifwe had to live through the whole speech again to re-extract the
meaning, we should find it very inconvenient. And the meaning
can hardly be said to exist in time as the spoken words exist.
Furthermore, the meaning intended in attention to the speaker is
not the same as the meaning intended in recollection. In hearing
we aim at the meaning of the speaker - m memory we aim at the
meaning which we drew from his words. And the same distinction
holds good, though it is less apparent, even with the speaker's
words: for we intend in the one case the words as spoken, m
relation to the speaker, and we intend in the other the words as
we heard them. And the words in this aspect, were never an actual
object of perception; they have their existence only in memory.
The past which we alm at is the experience of an ideal individual,
who should have been both internal and external to ourselves,
who should have both known and experienced the past to which
in a very loose sense our memory may be said to "refer'.
50
On the Distinction of <Real' and <Ideal'
In short, it appears that the past in the sense in which it is sup-
posed to be recalled, in popular psychology, simply never existed;
the past lived over is not memory, and the past remembered was
never lived. But it will again be objected, if there is not a partial
identity, and the possibility of degrees of identity, between the
idea and an objective past reality, how is the idea to be distin-
guished from an idea of imagination? And it may be answered
that there is an identity - not the sort of identity which we find
between two objects, but that which can be found between two
aspects. The past as lived and the past as remembered are in fact
one and the same in intention, although in fact there is no reason
to say either that they are the same or different. In order to make
either statement, one would have to show a point of fact to which
both refer, or one to which one refers and the other does not; and
this identical viewpoint does not occur. You either live the past,
and then it is present, or you remember it, and then it is not the
same past as you once lived: the difference is not between two
objects, but between two points of view. Two points of view may
intend the same thing without there being any 'thing' which is the
same. The sameness is a function of the two points of view. But
there may, as we have seen, be a certain amount of discrepancy
without any impeachment of memory, as when we 'remember' as
the statement of a speaker what is actually a present inference
from what we heard.*
* My remarks on the memory-image arc I think thoroughly in accorcl with the
conclusions of Titchener; but for me differences are essential which for Titchener
appear to be only accidental (Text-book ( ~ f Psychology, Part H, pp. 415-19). 'Is it not
something of a paradox that the memory-image should be thus variable and in-
stable? At first thought, yes: because we are ready to accept, from popular psycho-
logy, the notion that an image is a memory-image of itself, in its own right; and if
that were the casE', the image must of necessity copy or reproduce the perception.
On reflection, no: because the image is, after all, made into a memory-image by
thc feeling of familiarity. So there is no reason in the world why it should copy
the original experience. All it has to do - jf we may ourselves talk a popular
psychology is to mean that experience (the meaning is given as the
context of associated ideas and attitudt') and to be recognized as meaning it.
Suppose for a moment that memory-images were just weaker copies of the earlier
perceptions, and nothing less or more: our mental life would. so far as we can
imagine it. be an inextricable confusion of photographically accurate records. It
is, in reality, because the image breaks up, because nervous impressions are
telescoped, short-circuited, inter-changed. suppressed, that memory, as we have
51
On the Distinction oj'Real' and 'Ideal'
The identity in question is an Ideal identlty, a relation which
exists only in relation with other (in fact, Wlth all the other)
identities in the series: it is an Identity supported, if you hke the
phrase, by the Wlll. You have a past experience and a present
memory and, if these were all that existed, even they would not
exist for they would constitute two utterly disparate worlds. But
you have also an experience b and a memory B, and so on, and
when you have the two alphabets given and only then you have
some standard for comparIson. The reference of each memory is
not given separately, but you are, in a sense, given the whole
series first. You cannot say simply "A is identical with a" but you
say "A is identical with a, with regard to the Identity of B with b'
and vice versa.
8
The idea, if the foregoing remarks have any cogency, IS not a
glass through which we descry a past reality, but the idea of a past
reality is Itself the object, an object which is not past in the sense
of a past object of experience, and which IS not present m the
sense of a present object. It may appear a paradoxical statement,
but it is not altogether untrue to say that the object of a memory
is the memory itself: meaning only that we must distmguish
between the object of the memory and the object of our attention
when we remember. In memory, consequently, there is no more
divorce between idea and reality than in any other kmd of
apprehension; the reality is our memory of a past experience, the
idea is the reality in so far as we find the idea satisfactory, and
when the idea fails to satisfy, we identlfy it with some other reality
of memory or imagination. And the more or less figurative
expression 'some other reality' must not mislead us: the operation
consists simply in recognizing the idea for what it already is. How
much this qualification explains is a question which introduces
us to the dangerous problem of error, and this problem I shall
memory, IS at all pOSSIble. The remark has often been made that, If we dId not
forget. we could not remember. That IS true. But we may go even farther and say
that, If the mental Image could not decay [cf. Hobbes] It could not eIther be the
conscious vehicle of memory:
My claim is that it IS a bad metaphor to speak of the change from percept to
memory-image as a decay. There IS an alteraoon. not only In fullness and order.
but In content. There are two essentIally dIfferent POints of view.
5!'l
On the Distinction of' Real' and (Ideal'
have to postpone till I have gathered in several other floating
embarrassments. I should like now to offer some remarks on the
relation of Idea and reahty when the reahty is an anticipated event
and when it IS an Imagmary event or object
It is obvious that an image located m the future cannot intend
the real event, and the theory which possessed some plausibihty in
the case of memory cannot here apply. In remembering, we have
seen, we have a memory which with respect to other memories
refers to a particular reality. In the case of an idea located in the
future, there is no such correspondence to be found, for the antici-
pated event may never realize Itself. Ideas of anhcipation, accord-
mgly, occupy a place between Ideas of memory and ideas of im-
aginatIOn. Such ideas may vary in two ways: in the degree of their
reahzation, and m the degree of their connection WIth the present.
Tills connection, again, may vary in two ways: the idea may be
assocIated with the present, and spring therefrom, either m virtue
of its probablhty or in VIrtue of its mterest. And here is a hne of
demarcation between anticipation and imagmation: a purely im-
aginary event can never really be set in the future, for such a dls-
position of Ideas implies a continuity with the real eXIstence of the
subject, and a 'future' which has not such continuity IS no future
at all, but mIght as well be called past. An author can imagine, If
you hke, what 'mIght' happen to his characters m the sequel, but
such events are either such as the author can imagine himself
making to happen, or such as he imagines the characters them-
selves as antiCIpating or such as he accepts or rejects. And If! pre-
sent to myself the figure of a centaur or dryad as existmg 'm the
future', I do one of two things. I either throw myself direct into a
visionary world, which I proceed to qualify by the term 'future" or
I quahfy present reality and the idea of centaur so as to make the
latter to me a real possibility. And the imaginary here mentioned
is not as future imaginary; it is the real future of an imaginary
present. An anticipated idea, then, cannot be wholly imaginary,
and on the other hand it cannot essentially refer to an event
which becomes actual. These observations seem so obvious that
I must apologize for offering them.
53
On the Distinction of Real' and Ideal'
As to the degree of realization, it is not in principle involved.
For we have seen that the degree of 4identity' between the
memory and its intended real experience is not a question; and
here, from the point of view of the idea, we are concerned only
Wlth possibility and interest. Though the difference of principle
between ideas of the future and ideas of imagination is clear, yet
the difference of fact is often hard to determine. We must of
course consider an idea as possible, but we may so consider it with
a greater or less degree of evidence, as we are moved by interest
(includmg of course fear) or by knowledge: an idea which may
appear to an outsider a pure imagination, possesses fatality for
one crazed by fear or passion. It has frequently been said that we
never deSIre what we think absolutely mapprehensible: it is
however true that some of our sharpest agonies are those in which
the object of desire IS regarded as both possible and imagina.ry, in
which in fact the aspro martiro is due to the irony of the contrast:
the mistress exists as possessed in the real world of antiCIpation of
the disappointed lover, whIle present reality is forcing itself in
upon him with the conviction that this possession is imaginary.
Images of future satisfaction to which we looked forward with
confidence, we are constantly compelled to consign to the hmbo
of imagination; and we frequently forget that they were not
imaginary in their genesis. The principle of the idea of antiCIpa-
tion, in short, I take to be this. The present as experience is as we
have seen (Chapter I) indefinable and in this sense unknown, but
its character, and ultimately its existence depend upon the internal
qualification of real by ideal; and in this sense the present is ideal
construction, and an ideal construction in which Ideal construc-
tions of the past and future are integral. These ideas do not
qualify a. real past and future, for there is no real past or future
for them to qualify; past and future are as such themselves ideal
constructions. Ideas of the past are true, not by correspondence
with a real past, but by their coherence with each other and
ultimately with the present moment; an idea of the past is true,
we have found, by virtue of relations among ideas. SImilarly, an
idea of the future is not applied to the real complex which shall
54
On the Distinction of 'Real' and 'Ideal'
represent the realization or falsi:fication of this Idea. The presen t
of ideal construction, the present of meaning and not simply of
psychical or physical process, is really a span which mcludes my
present ideas of past and future. The reality of the future is a
present reality, and It is this present future-reality of which our
ideas of anticipation are predicated, and Wlth which they are
idenb:fied. 'She must weep or she will die' IS a statement not about
the real future (which would be a contradiction) but about the
realjuture.
9
'Ve are not to say that one of these ideas is realized
and the other left floatmg 'like Mahomet's coffin'lo; there is really
but one Idea, and that is predicated of a present future with which
it is identical. The reality is immanent to the idea, or else the idea
IS not the idea of that reality.
If the last statement is true at all, it is true of the ideas of
imagination as well as of any other. I shall state very briefly what
I take to be the principle here involved, leavmg the full discussion
of the existence of unreal objects to a later chapter, in connection
with the theories of Meinong. IfI figure to myself the character of
a personage of :fiction, it is not true to say that there is no real
object to which the idea means to 'correspond'. The dIstinction
between real and unreal is practically useful but metaphysIcally
baseless and indefensible. The character of fiction is imperfectly
real because it is imperfectly ideal. And the round square, so far
as it is idea (and I do not mean image) is also real. It is not unreal,
for there is no reality to which it should correspond and does not.
If there were to be such a reality, one would have to have an idea
of it - and this idea which you call unreal is the only idea of it
which you can present. The detailed discussion of this point I
shall take up m connection with the problem of content, object,
act, and presentation. The complete idea is the reality, and it is
not until the idea realizes itself, and thus becomes really ideal,
that we can really trace its ideal connections. When the poet says
I lived witlt shadows Jor my company
she is announcing at once the defect and the superiority of the
world she lived in. The defect, in that it was vaguer, less of an
55
On the Distinction of f Real' and {Ideal'
Idea, than the world of others; the superiority, in that the
shadows pointed toward a reality, which, if it had been realized,
would have been in some respects, higher type of reali ty than the
ordinary world - compared to which the ordinary world would be
less real, and which the ordinary world might be said to 'mean'.l1
The question in what sense an idea is 'meaning" may now be
resolved. I accept Bradley's definition of a judgment as the predi-
cation of an idea of reality, and I agree that this idea is one whole.
And in the article to which I have frequently referred ('Floatmg
Ideas') he has laid down the general doctrine of the relation of
real and ideal. But I maintain that for metaphysical purposes at
least (Logic, p. 3) the notion of idea as symbol is quite inadequate.
An idea is not a symbol as a fox is of cunning, or an anchor of
hope. You cannot so isolate existence and meaning, in the case of
ideas. And to say that an idea is an identical reference is only
partially true. There is however a sense in which it may be said
that idea is meaning. We may say, in one way, that every idea
means itself; its ideahty consists in Its 'pointing toward' its
realization, or (we have found It to be the same thing) toward its
own idealization, Hence an Idea as contrasted with reality, is
something which cannot be grasped - for it can only be described
in terms of that reality - in which case you have the realIty and
not the Idea; or it must be described in terms of some other
reality - in which case it has lost its meaning, and is no longer
the same idea. The existence of idea, then, in contrast with the
real, is only in the process, eluding our pains; for as soon as you
touch it, you find that the whole world resolves itself into ideas -
or into reals. The idea is, as idea, Act; and how far Act can be
made an object, together with its relation to content, presenta-
tion, and object (Inhalt, VOTstellung,* Gegenstand) will form the
subject of the ensuing chapter.
* Should I apologIZe for the fact that my lIse of 'Idea' does not correspond with
that of any author wlth whom I am acquamted? I have trled to show m the fore-
gomg that -idea should not be lIsed mdlfferently Wlth concept or wlth ~ m a g e . and
presentat10n has a rather dlfferent use from elther.
56
CHAPTER III
The Psychologist's Treatment
of Knowledge
T
he conclusion derived from the two precedmg sections has
been that within the whole which is experience and is
reality there IS a distinction of real and ideal (within which
is included the distinction of real and unreal): a distinction which
turns out to be appearance and not real, inasmuch as the real is
largely ideal, and the ideal is also real; a distinction, however,
which in a sense supports reality.* For it IS bytrus dIstinction that
the word realIty contains any meaning. We have found that
realIty is in a sense dependent upon thought, upon a relative
point of view, for its existence; for ultimately the world is com-
pletely real or completely ideal, and Ideality and reality turn out
to be the same. And we found that the Ideal can never be set over
against the real absolutely, but tends to run, either forward or
back, into the real which it intends, or the real out of which it may
be saId to be made: for both these reals are after all nothing but
itself at another stage of development. It will be evident that the
problem of error, in such a theory, becomes a very clamorous one.
To approach this problem we must examine more narrowly the
various moments of the process of apprehendmg an object: and
inquire whether the distinction of real and ideal, as we have found
its general prmciple, corresponds to the distmction of object and
act, or of object and presentatlOn. The nature of mental 'actiVIty'
and the operation of categories must be discussed. And the
* Mr Bradley does not commIt hImself to the assertIOn that non-relational
experIence IS Impossible, but It IS Imphclt In hIS pObltlOn. ThIS, of course, IS not 111
conflIct WIth the other assertIon that all experIence ~ In the end non-relabonaI.
57
The Psychologist's Treatment of If:nowledge
question, much agitated in recent yearsi< of the subject-matter of
psychology, must be agitated again.
The dlstinction between real and ideal in psychology takes
several forms. On the one hand, it may be said, is external
reality, and on the other mental content, which is ideal in so far
as it intends that reality and has reality of its own as well; and
which, under the aspect of that reality of its own, can be studied
by the psychologist. Or we may deny the possibility of a valid
distinction between content and external reahty, and distinguish
only between object and act or conation. Or we may deny activity
to consciousness altogether, and assemble eXlstents in one
complex or another. Or we may say that reality conSIsts of
elements of sensation, the rest being ideal construction. Or there
is the view of Mr Bradley, for whom everything is in a way
psychical, and for whom therefore the distmction between object
and act is not identical with that between an internal and an
external reality but is reducible to the problem of knowing one's
own mind.
The questions involved are these: in an act of apprehension is
there a part which is strictly mental and a part which is strictly
external? and even if the distinction can be made, can it be made
sharply enough to give us a class of objects which can form a
separate science, psychology? and the ultimate question is: is
there a problem of the possibility of knowledge as well as that of
the morphology and structure of knowledge?
There are two terms of psychology, which imply unexamined
assumptions, and one of wruch at least has undergone the fire of
recent realism: <mental content" and <psychical process'. The first
is an assumption still of the majority of psychologists. The
presentation of an external object mayor may not "agree' with
that object, but in the cases where we assume a complete agree-
ment or identity, the presentation is like a point at which the
* I refer to the articles m 1J1md by Bradley, Prichard, Joseph, Stout. and
Joachlm, to the artIcles m the Proc. Anst. Soc. and In the Bnt2sh Journal of
Psychology by Alexander; and artIcles m the Proc. Arist. Soc. by Stout, HICks
and Dumvllle. I shall also refer to wrItings of Memong, Messer and Lipps
(especially the latter's Inhalt und Gegenstand).
58
The Psychologist' 8 Treatment of Knowledge
circumferences of two circles are in contact: the one point may
be taken twice over in two divergmg contexts. Thus Miss Wode-
house declares (p. 13) that content has one context, while object
has another. The one is continuous with mental history, the other
with external or physIcal And Witasek states the theory in a
more extreme way (which MISS Wodehouse would probably not
accept) when he says (p. 3): 'a stone die IS hard and cold, grey and
heavy and angular: the presentation thereof, the thought or
memory of the die, has none of these characteristIcs, and cannot
ha ve them - it merely Itself contams, over again, the presentation
of hard and cold and so on .... My inner picture . .. of the tree ...
is known only to myself. '* Hoiler is saying the same thing when he
makes the dlstmctlOn: 'PhysIcal phenomena are presented as
spatial, and indeed in extended fashion, as located at a place; all
mental phenomena are unspatial. '** Stout (Manual, p. 58) says:
'If I perceIve a triangle, my perceptIon is not triangular, - it is
not made up of lines and angles.' And the same Vlew is imphed by
Tltchener, when he says (Text-boole, p. 37) : 'The psychologist seeks,
first of all, to analyse mental experience [italics mine] into its
Simplest components.'
Tills assumptlOn that references or meanings can be handled in
the same way as the objects to which they refer, an assumption
which so far as I can find, it is hardly thought necessary to de-
fend, is an assumption which I believe to have very slight foun-
dation.***
* 'Em stemerner \V urfel 1St hart und kalt, grau und schwer und eclag; dIe
Vorstellung van Ihm, der Gedanke, die Erinnerung an lhn, hat nichts van dlesen
Elgenschaften, und kann Illchts davon haben - sw enthalt nur selber wlederum
dIe Vorstellung- van hart und kalt und anderem ... [M]em m n ~ r e 8 Bild [Italics
mme] vom Baume ... das kenne lch allem .. .'
** 'PhyslSche Erschemungen werden als raumhch und zwar, 1. als ausgedehnt,
2. als an einem Orte befindhch vorgestellt; alle psychlsche Erschemungen smd
unraumlich. '
*** <\.5 I am in thiS discussion particularly mdebted to Mr Prichard I wIll ask
permission to quote at :;ome length flom Kant'8 Theory 0/ Knowledge, pp. 125-6:
'IT]he tendency to thlllk that the only object or,at least, the only direct object ofthe
mind IS sornethmg mental still reqUIres expJanatlOll. It seems due to It tendency to
treat self-conscIOusness as Similar to conscIOusness of the world. \Vhen m re-
fiE'ctIon we turn our att{'ntwll away frolll the world to the actIVIty by which we
come to know it, we tend to think of our knowledge ofthe world as a realIty to be
59
The Psychologist's Treatment oj Knowledge
I wish to consider several typical instances of the theory, and
pomt out the untenable postulates upon which it rests. I would
then dISCUSS certain amblguities 111 the position of Mr Bradley in
this matter, and sketch a theory whlCh appears to me more
consistent wIth hIS metaphysical vIews. And first I should like to
offer a tentative definition of Fact. A fact, I would submit, is a
point of attention whICh has only one aspect, or which can be
treated under one aspect. A fact, then, IS an ideal constructwn,
and has its existence within a more or less variable sphere of prac-
tical or scientific interest. It is not a judgment simply, but an
objective asserted ('it is a fact that'), it contains an internal
judging and an external recognizmg of the valIdIty of the judgment.
Thus when I say 'Velasquez painted this portrait of Philip II'
there is as yet no fact expressed; when I say 'It is a fact that V.,
etc.', or 'it is true that -' or 'I know that - ' I am concerned
with fact. There is a sphere of historical RealIty whICh is taken for
granted, a sphere existing in such a way that the judgment re-
ferred to must be either right or wrong, and thIs sphere we WIll
call 'matter of fact'. And if this judgment is made upon the
ground of internal evidence, there may be as well a sphere of
aesthetic values taken for granted. Facts are not merely found
in the world and laid together like bricks, but every fact has in a
sense Its place prepared for it before it arrives, and wIthout the
ImplicatIon of a system in which it belongs the fact is not a fact
at all. The ideahty essential to fact means a particular point
of view, and means the exclusion of other aspects ofthe same point
apprehended similar to the world wInch we apprehended prIOr to reflectIOn. "\Ve
thereby ImplICItly treat this knowledge as something WhiCh, like the world, merely
is and IS not the knowledge of any thmg, In other word" we nnply that, so far
from bemg knowledge, Le the knowmg of a reality, It IS ,precisely that which
we dlsbnguI!>h from knowledge, VIZ. a reality to be known, although - since
knowledge must be mental- we Imply that It IS a reality of the special kind
called mental. But If the knowledge upon which we reflect is thus treated as
consIsting m a mental realIty which merely 18, It IS Implied that In this knowledge
the world IS not, at any rate dIrectly, object of the mmd, for ex hypothest a realIty
whiCh merely 'wand IS not the knowledge of anything has no object .. The root
of the mistake lies m the Il1ltlal supposItIon - wInch, It may be noted, seems to
ttnderlie the whole treatment of kno?L'l fdge by empwwal psychology [ItalIcs mine 1 -
that knowledge can be treated as a reality to be apprehended. m the way In WhiCh
any reality which IS not knowledge is a reality to be apprehended.'
60
The Psychologist's Treatment of Iinozt'ledge
of attention. There is a sense, then, in which any science - natural
or soclal- is a pr'iori: in that it satisfies the needs of a particular
point of view, a point of view which may be said to be more original
than any of the facts that are referred to that SCIence. The de-
velopment of a science would thus be rather organic than
mechamcal; there is a fitness of the various facts for each other,
WIth that instinctive selection and exclusion which is a charac-
teristic of human personality at its highest. Thus the character
of a science, like the character of a man, may be said both
to be already present at the moment of conception, and on the
other hand to develop at every moment into something new
and unforeseen. But it will have, from its crudest beginnings, a
character to which (though it may belie all our verbal definitions)
it will always remam consistent.
Accordingly we may well look, without seeking to formulate
narrowly, for the traits of psychology's maturity in the features of
infancy. And I have been unable to discover, in the first place,
that any scientific individuality is possible as 'reference or meaning',
or that you can conjure up one by the magic word 'presentation'.
The presentation, I shall argue, is identical with the object from
the point of view of the experiencing subject, and from this point
of view you have, in metaphysics, no appeal. If we come to find
anything more real (as common sense tells us that we must) our
criterion will not be an arbitrary division of experience and an
arbitrary neglect of the individual, but a theory of degrees of
reality. And It is only this arbitrary division which gives us the
puzzles of immanent and transcendent object, of unreal and
imaginary.
"Whatever constituents of our total experience at any moment"
says Stout (Manual, p. 5'7), 'directly determine the nature of the
object as it is perceived or thought of at that moment, belong to the
cognitive side of our nature, and are called presentations.' I do not
know in the first place exactly what limits Mr Stout feels justified
in setting to the 'total experience at any moment'; for this defini-
tion would surely not exclude physiological process or logical cate-
gory. Does he mean the 'content of consciousness'? But a so-called
61
content of consciousness is not, any more than the world of
knowledge, a mere collection of entities in which being and being
known IS identical, so far as they refer to their objects they are
not themselves known, and so far as they are made objects of
knowledge they no longer refer to obJ ects. >J. The sensation of red,
as cognItive, is not a presentation, but awareness of a red object,
an object which is not in any case mental. What do we mean when
we turn our attentlOn from a red object to a sensation red? We
are, I think, simply diverting attention from a variously deter-
mined object to a uniquely determined one. The so-called real
object is in Mr Stout's words "circumscribed and dlrected by a
plexus of visual and other presentations'.12 He should either say, I
think, that the object is this plexus, or admit that even a single
sensation circumscribes and directs an object. I cannot see why
two or more sensations should give us the object when one does
not. For Mr Stout admits that the object may really be presented.
"We may say, if we choose, that the object Itself is presented, but
we must not say that it is a presentation; and when we say that it
is presented, it is better to say that it is presented to conscious-
ness, than that it is presented in conscIousness' (An. Psych., I,
p. 47). I fail to discern the dIfference, even if consciousness could
have perceptions both outside and mSlde, I do not know how it
would succeed in distingUishing one kind from the other. The
difference is simply this: a <red object' is an object which is other-
wise known than by the quality red; it is an object which has been
given a determined place in an order. The sensation is an object
which has not yet thus been placed. It is incorrect, then, to say
that we can have sensations of redness; redness is a concept; or to
say that we have sensations of red. The sensation is of a red
something, a red spot or area. And the discovery that the cause of
the sensation lS a pathological irritatIon does not affect the
objectivity of the sensation in the least. The red "that' was there,
and the fact that the object cannot be further defined and verified
does not make it any the less object.
* As has been ably pointed out by Mr Pnchard and I beheve by Professor Cook
Wilson.
The Psychologist's Treatment of Knowledge
The distmction between object and presentation can be made,
as we have seen, m another way the perception of a triangle, says
Stout, is not triangular, the idea of a stone, says Wltasek, is not
hard and grey. This statement I believe to be in a sense false, and
m a sense mere juggling wlth words. You argue that because idea
and object are different, the idea cannot have the physical
qualities of the object, and the fact that the idea cannot have
these quahties goes to show that there is an 'idea' different from
the object. The confuslOn of course is between reference and
eXistence. the idea is conceived to have an existence apart from
lts object. This existence, as I have attempted to show in the
preceding chapter, is simply the fact of its reference. This fact
(which is an objective) cannot be said to be triangular or grey
(though it may be hard) - but the fact thus isolated is not the
idea, the fact of the reference of the idea must not lead us to speak
of the idea as a fact; the idea is only matter of fact. And indeed
we may say that the idea is an abstraction from itself-for the
whole idea is (and yet cannot be) the reahty, the ldea, and the fact
of reference of the idea.
When we say, then that the idea or the perception of a triangle
is not trlangular, we mean only the fatmty, that the fact of
reference is not triangular. And as I have attempted to show in
the preceding chapter, the idea (and the perception) is always in
a sense identical WIth the reality which It intends. There can be
for a perception, as we have seen, an indeterminate object; there
can as well be a mistaken object, and in this way, when the same
perception seems to be transferred from one object to another,
we are tempted to say that the perception exists and is an object
itself apart from any intended object. \Ve have all had the ex-
perience of remarking a large bird in the dIstance, and discovering
that it is a small insect a foot or two away. Here we say was 8
perception which has attached to two different objects. It is not
so. There are two different perceptions, the second more con-
sistent with a 'world" but no more closely attached to an object
presented to consciousness than is the :first. There cannot, that is,
be a perception of an object if the object perceived is not really
63
The Psychologist's Treatment of I(nowledge
there. And when you attempt to consider this 'presentation'
apart from any prejudice as to the nature of reality you are
committed to a contradiction. You must treat the perceptlOn
elther as an illusion or as true. Apart from one or the other of
these two points of view the perception simply does not exist. Any
attempt to separate percept from object merely doubles the
object. A perceptIOn cannot be an object for psychology in the
sense in which Mr Stout would have it, because it involves two
irresoluble points of view.
I confess that I am confused rather than enlightened by Mr
Stout's rejoinder to Mr Prichard (J.}Iind, April 1907). He says:
'For Psychology, the esse of the facts with which it deals is percipi
in the sense that it considers things only in so far as they are at any
moment known, or in so far as they come to be known ... to an
individual mind, and so enter into further relations both to the
knowing mind, and to each other.' The fallacy of this statement,
if I read it rightly, is as follows. The esse of no fact can be percipi.
Now is psychology really considermg 'things only in so far as they
are at any moment known ... to an individual mind'? For so far
as they are known to an individual mmd they are simply, and
that's an end of it. And If as psychologists, we inquire into the
nature of things as known to another indiVidual mind, we are
doing much more than we think: we are abstracting from them
one kind of reality which they had for this mind, and substltuting
therefor another kind - namely, their reality as related to this
mind. In Mr Stout's well-known instance, the man enjoying a
cigar, there are, following out his definition, three cigars present:
1. The cigar known to the smoker.
~ . The (cigar knmvn to the smoker) as known to the psycho-
logist.
S. The cigar known to the psychologist, in the role of private
citizen.
Now if we content ourselves with being psychologists and not
epistemologists, we have no warrant for identifyi.ng these three
cigars. And Mr Stout not only insists upon the different points of
64
The Psychologist's Treatment of ICnowledge
view (the experiences of individual minds) but holds the incon-
sistent belief that psychology can exhibit the constructlOn of the
external world - that it can first abstract wholly from reality,
and then piece reality together out of the abstractions.
Again, Mr Stout's beliefs in regard to the nature of sensations
are far from clear. In the reply to Mr Prichard he says (ibid., p.
~ 4 1 ) : "What we [himself and Dr Ward] refer to when we speak of
sensation is something apprehended as distinct from the act of
apprehension .... Sensations ... are .. objects or, as Ward would
say, "presentations".' This seems clear enough, though we may
be disconcerted in referring back to the preceding page to find
that a presentation, as the word is used by Dr Ward, is 'whatever
is known qua known, whether directly or indirectly'. There is an
ambiguity about the phrase "known quo, known'. It may mean:
1. from the point of view of the knower; 2. from the point of view
of an observer regarding the knower in the act of knowing. Now
on turning to Stout's article "Are Presentations Mental or
Physical? A Reply to Professor Alexander', (Proc. Arist. Soc.,
1908-9, a year later than the reply to Prichard), we find stated
on page 245: 'Sensations ... cannot be merely obj ects if they are
capable of entering into the constitution of properly subjective
states.' And on page Q46: "Can Retentiveness be explained if
presentations are Physical?' And referring to the Manual, we
find that (p. 119) 'It is better to restrict the term sensation to the
special form of consciousness which accompanies the actual opera-
tlOn of stimulus'. I do not know what a "special form of conscIOus-
ness' is; the phrase is at best hardly luminous. And when I find
the author in one and the same article (.llfind, p. 241, April 1907)
stating that a sensatIOn is an object, and later suggesting (ibid.,
p. 4) that an (external) object may be made up of sensations, as
a plant is of root, stem, leaves, etc., I conclude that I know neither
what is sensation nor what is object.
The confusion results, I think, not so much from there not being
several realities to correspond to the several terms, as from the use
of terms in a plural marriage to mean several things indifferently:
and to the fact that there are not distinct classes of objects to
E 65 E.K.E.
The Psychologist' 8 Treatment of I( nowledge
correspond to the several (real) distinctions. The former difficulty
is peculiar to Mr Stout; the latter is a general difficulty of the
subject-matter, and 1S apparent in a psychologist of a very
d1fferent school, Professor Alexander. Mr Alexander is equally
certain that a :field of the psychical may be sharply distinguished
from the non-psycmcal, though he draws the hne elsewhere. In
several remarkable articles, and notably that On Sensations and
Images' (Proe. Arist. Soc., 1909-10) he has maintained a cona-
tional psychology. (Proe. Arist. Soc., 1908-9): ... mind cons1sts of
conations, affection being treated as a modality of conation.'
And in the artIcle just cited: The sentience is mental, but it is
held not to vary in quahty. The sensum, which I shall commonly
call sensatlOn, is non-mental' Similarly (p. IS): "the imagmg is
mental, the image physical: In the attention to a green object,
the object of our attention may be merely the sensation green'
(p.l).13
In contrast to the theory of Mr Stout, such a view has manifest
conveniences. It enables us, in the :first place, to do away with the
equivocal presentation' which we have found such a source of
embarrassment. Where Stout vacillates between feeling and object,
the two are here sharply discriminated. The difficulties of unreal
objects, of presentations which present nothing, are apparently
avoided. Yet I thmk that the ultimate objections are much the
same after all. In the :first place, consider the status of sensation.
Mr Alexander appears to assume, like almost everybody else, that
we may have a consciousness which is in the strictest sense the
consciousness of a sensation, and of nothing else. I have argued
(supra, p. 6fl) that a sensation of' colour' is a loose expression for
a perception of a coloured something, and when we think of a
colour, it is of a thing not otherwise conditioned than by that
colour that we think. Similarly, in the case of a cutaneous pain-
sensation, it is of an object conditioned only by that pain-
sensation that we think. The sensation, I maintain, is always a
way of being conscious of an object, and as we become conscious
of this consciousness, it may result in an added determination
either of the object or of the self. Hence, on my view, a conscious-
66
ness of red is on the one hand a red consciousness and on the other
hand the consciousness ofa red object.
Otherwise, I think, Mr Alexander will :find the same difficulty
in constructing an object out of sensations as does Mr Stout. A
sensation is certainly an object In the sense that it is the object to
whlCh it refers, but when we are aware of an object, the sensatwns
through which we come into contact with It do not persist along-
side it as independent objects, as on the ultra-objective theory I
should expect them to. We seem to find a fallacy which can be
attacked thus; The object of attention and the qual2ties or conditioWl
of this object cannot be equally objective from the point of view jar
which they exist as such.
In a sensation, that is, there are two verbal moments, the -ing
and the -ed, which can be discriminated when together but cannot
be treated apart. The evidence that they can be discrimmated for
certain practical purposes is simply this, that when we speak of a
sensation, in our quotidian vocabulary we can WIth perfect
propnety have emphasis on either the active or the objective
aspect, never meaning wholly one or the other in isolation.
Sensation-in-Itself IS in the language of Bradley 'feehng' or
experience as more original than consciousness; but sensation in
itself is not as such capable of being an object of attention
(Chapter I). Sensation and perception, on the theory I have just
outlined, are different in concept but in existence different only in
degree. Sensation as known is always some degree of crude per-
ception;14 the moment we speak of 'having a sensation' we have
stepped into the theory of knowledge, have posited a self and
consequently an external world, it is still sensation, however, in
that it is rather a feeling of a peculiar relation than a charac-
terization of either subject or object.
The situation of the separate sensations, then, with regard to
the developed object, is this; the sensations cannot be objects on
the same plane as the developed object, since it is to this object,
and not as before, to themselves (as by the vagueness of their
reference they may loosely be said to do) that they refer. They
are the ways of being conscious - the content - of this object,
67
and in a sense the total experience may be said to be, on a higher
plane, a fuller sensation of a remoter object (and so on). In other
words, ther-e is a constant transcendence of object into reference,
and the absolutely objective is nowhere found. ThIs, I think,
furmshes a pertinent criticism of Mr Alexander. In a world so
objective as that of Mr Alexander one cannot have a genuine ob-
ject presented to one. ('On Sensation and Images', p. 15): 'Fully
realise that perceiving a thing means that mind and the thing are
together in the same sense as the table and the floor are together,
and you understand that the imagination of the table means that
the mind and the table are together; but the table in its imagined
form, with imperfections and added elements.' I do not see how
they can be together unless it is admitted that the object is only
the compound of sensations - a position which may lead to
Berkeley, and certainly leads to nominalism; (Con. Psych., p.
' ... a tlling as perceived contains besides sensory elements
other elements present to the mind only m ideal form .... But the
ideal elements are themselves objective and non-mental. They
exhiblt thelr true relation to the sensory elements m the course of
the perceptual process itself.' I do not think that we ought to say
that a thmg is made up of sensory elements and ideas, as a pastry
IS made up of the right ingredients and good cooking. I do not
think that it is true that we can or do attend to both sorts of ele-
ments at the same time in the same way. It is true, If you like, that
the Ideal elements are non-mental, but their relation with the real
elements is one of mutual reference and implication, and in a
world composed solely of objects I can find no room for lmplicatwn.
The picture which certain masses of colour 'imply' IS just as
'objective' as the colour-sensations, but not objectIve in the same
way; the cogmtion of the pIcture means a transitIOn to a different
plane of realIty. The colour-masses have thus transcended them-
selves, and ceased to be slmply objects.
This introduces us to Mr Alexander's theory of the subject-
matter of psychology. Over against sensation the properly mental
element is conation. (Con. Psych., p. 'the subject, as given in
enjoyment and therefore in the only form in which it enters into
68
The Psychologist's Treatment oJ Knowledge
psychology is nothing but the continuous tissue of its acts of
conation or attention.' Psychology "will describe how dlfferently
Itfeels or is enjoyed when we sense or perceive or Wlll or the like.'
Now my difficulty as I have already said, is in understanding what
is left when you abstract from a mental state its reference; or
what comes to the same thing, what reference is left when you
have only the reference. "In watching a ball whlCh one is trying to
catch, the perceptive conation whose object is the approaching
ball is that complex of visual and anticipatory tactual conations
which issue in movements of the eyes and more particularly of the
hands' (Con. Psych., p. 248). I cannot find anything here, once
the non-mental or objective elements are abstracted, upon which
I can lay my finger. I can see material for psycho-physics, but Mr
Alexander insists that psycho-physlCs is a different field (ibid., p.
248 ff) I can only understand conation, so far as we may be said
to be conscIOUS of it at the moment, and Mr Alexander's conatIOn
goes far beyond this point, inasmuch as it is everywhere present -
the subject in psychology is a 'contmuous tissue' of Its acts of
conatIOn.
There is no reason for regarding conation as ultimate even from
a psychological point of view, unless we are ready to accept a
psychology of faculty. And I can see no reason for making will
more original than thought (Ibid., p. 263): ' ... [T]he act of judg-
ment is maintained to be literally an act of will.' The proposition
which is the cognitum of the judgment is the object willed. It is as
posslble to state will in intellectual terms, and to say (what I do
not believe to be any truer) that will is the self-realIzation of an
idea. The conation, I am ready to admIt, exists, but only in a
certain context: only with on one side a self to which the conation
is attached (but which IS never Identified with that conation) and
on the other side with a real world (real from the point of view of
this self, which is all the reality required) which the conation in-
tends. For in willIng (and in desiring (Messer) which is another
form of conation) some reality is already posIted, and in desire the
object desired is recognized as somehow real (Bradley). Thus it
cannot be wholly true that (ibid., p. 265) ' ... it is in willmg that
69
The Psychologist's Treatment of .1.:nowledge
objects ... become known as real. ... ' And in thIs relation the
conatlOn ceases to be merely a conation.
I cannot help thmking that Mr Alexander's conation tends to
find its full reality in physiological process, much as its author
may himself deprecate this conclusion. 'There is', he says (ibid., p.
252), 'good reason for believing that these differences [m conatIOn]
are really of a spatial character, really are dIfferences oJtke locality
and direct'ion oJ the physiological processes [italics mine] and that
that locality and directIOn are actually enjoyed.' If what we 'en-
joy' is the physiological process, then either this process is the
object of the enjoyment - which is impossible, as the enjoyment
refers to an entity of which we are conscious; or the process is the
enjoyment - in which case nothmg remains surely but to study
the process itself. And the tendency toward physiology becomes
still more natural if we mean to treat affections (Proc. Arist Soc.,
1908-9, p. 6) 'as a modality of conation'. The neceSSIty for so
considering them appears only when we have made conation so
substantial as to isolate It from the intended reality, and the con
sequence is to make the tertiary qualities aesthetic, and entirely
subjective. Now I am prepared to argue that affections are just
as objecbve if objectivity is to be absolute and not in any sense a
matter of degree - as are sensations. Why should anger be any
less objective than pain-sensation;> Can we not contemplate our
affections as well as our sensations? And ifit be said that affections
are essentially wahrnehmungsjlucktig (perceptually elusive), in
contrast to sensation I reply that it appears to me everywhere a
matter of degree. And finally I seem to discover that Mr Alexander,
like Mr Stout, instead of recognizing everywhere differences of
degree, has erected sharp bounds and everywhere transgressed
them. One of the bounds is this: "we contemplate objects, we enjoy
our states. '16 liVe are then told that 'the fundamental fact of
experience informs us that mind is but one thing together with
external things ... ' and on the next page that panpsychism over-
looks "the fundamental difference of mind and things which is
expressed by saying that the one is enjoyed and the others con-
templated' (,The method of metaphysics" pp. 4 and 5).
70
The Psychologist's Treatment of I{ nowledge
An equally interesting and more satisfactory demarcation of
the field of psychology is that of Lip ps (lnhalt und Gegenstand). In
thIs essay, in whIch I find very little to questIOn, LIPpS makes the
claim that things, and not merely sensations, are gIven to us.
(P. 'A person who sees things ... is not seemg sensations, or
presentations, or perceptions, or experiences .... ' (P. 513) . ' ... sensa-
tion ... is a determmation of myself .... At the same time the
sensing IS ... also, in a manner, a determmation of (for example)
the blue or red.' There is a relative dIstinction mto 1. Myself, 2.
My sensing, 3. That whlCh is sensed, or the content of sensation.
What we are conscious of IS object (p. 520: 'To thmk somethmg, or
think of something, is to have somethmg as an obJect')", an object
which IS conditioned by our knowledge of It, because It is our
object, but wmch is real, and not mere Erscheinung (appearance)
- which is, qua our object, independent of us. The sensation is at
once a Bestimmung (determmation) ofthe object and of the leh
(the self), a relation between the two which conditIOns whIchever
you direct your attention toward.
The leh and its objects then form metaphysically one whole, a
whole from which we can abstract in either direction. Qualities m
relatIOn to external pomts of attention give us the realities of
practice and natural science; in relation to (in Beziehung auJ) the
leh they give the subject-matter of psychology. Mental states,
Lipps insists, have no independent existence: there are simply
relations which in our reference constitute the external or objec-
tive and in another reference constitute the psychical Eigen-
schaJten (characteristIcs) in themselves are not objects, not capable
of being made a pomt of attention, they can only be experienced
with respect to a point of attention. While normatrve sClence -
logic, ethics, aesthetics - is 'lyrisch', psychology IS "episch'-
gives not Ausdruck (expression), but Bericht (report). Normative
.. (p 512) ''''er Du'ge 'l,ht ... 'aeht filcht Empfindunp:en Yor,tpllungpn
oder PerzcptJonen ode, c"peIlenc,"'. (p. ';13) '. . dIe Emphndll'1g- .. eme
Bestmllnung memer bt . Zugip](,p l',t dd' EUlpfindt'n. .n g<''' ,,,','1 Smat'
.. mch {'Ille de;. Blau oder Rot .. ' Tn('re 15 a rel.\t.\ e (lI'::nctlon mto
1. 1<h. ::l. mem Empfmden. da, Empfund"nc odc! ti,'r En'Pthllltm",mh.llt
,rhat" e arc const'lOU, of oblerr (p. :;20 Etwa, denken, .m et"'b d"nken, dies
helS,t ern as zum Gegen.tande haben).
71
science IS the expression of the ueberindividuelles Ich, whICh IS In a
sense the realIzation of the llimted Ich. (P. 663): (The 'supra-
individual self') 'is in us, but we are not identical with it. Indeed,
so far as we are not, we ought to be so. This ought is the call, which
is an expression both of the presence of this self in us, and of our
own limitations'. As for empirical psychology, (p. 654) 'It does not,
indeed, replace the processes in consciousness, which experience
declares to "belong" to the soul, by other conscious processes.
But to the occurrence of such processes it adds a variety of deter-
minations, which are of another nature, and so cannot figure In
unmediate experIence. such as stimuli, aSSOCIations, memory-
traces, capacities, character-traIts and dispositions. It thereby
creates, upon causal principles, a world of the mentally or
psychically real, which absolutely transcends, and is thus wholly
beyond comparIson with, what is given In the Immediate experience
of the self.'*
This theory has a certain resemblance to that of Ward for
whom the subject-matter of psychology does not consist in any
particular group of entities, but in the 'whole choir of heaven and
earth' from a certain point of view. But there are aspects of Lipps'
theory which leads us toward the conclusion that this point of
view does not exist. Can Empfinden (sensing) be turned inside out
and applied to the Ich in the same way as to the thing iI I am
inclined to think that there is a confusion here. I cannot see why,
on the ground of the threefold division Ich - Empfinden - Emp-
Jundene (self - sensing - sensed) and the characterization, which
seems to me admirable, of Empfinden as a Bestimmung (determina-
* (The 'ueberindlvlduelles ich') '1St in uns, aber wlr smd es doch mcht. Eben,
so'Welt Wlr es mcht smd, sollen wlr es sem. Dies Sollen ist die Forderung; und
dlese ist der Ausdruck zugleich fur das Dasem jenes Ich m uns, und fur unsere
Schranke.' As for empirical psychology (p. 654): 'Sle ersetzt freilich mcht die
Bewusstsemserlebmsse, we nach Aussage jener Erfahrung an der Seele
"haften". durch andere Bewusstsemserlebnisse. Aber Sle fugt zu dem Haben
Bewusstsemserlebmssen allerlel Bestimmungen, die mchts derglelchen smd, und
darum in der unmlttelbaren Erfahrung mcht vorkommen konnen. So die RelZe,
die Assozlauonen, die Gedachtnisspueren, die Anlagen, CharaktereJgenschaften,
Disposluonen. Sie baut so dem Kausalgesetze gemliss eme Welt des seehschen
oder des p:;ychischen Realen auf, die dem m der unmlttelbaren Icherfahrung
Gegebenen absolut transzendent, ja dalnlt volhg unverglelchhch 1St.'
7 ~
The Psychologist> s Treatment of Knowledge
tion) of both Ich and object, any further determination of the
status of sensation should be necessary. This one situation is that
which It always occupies. I am not, in experience of a colour,
treatmg the sensation as a qualIfication of the blue or red any
more than of myself. However I express myself, I mean only that
the sensation is there as a relation between myself and the object,
a relation which is mternal and goes to make up both self and
object. And if you propose to detach this sensation any further
from the object and make it a determmation solely of the self,
then you put it in an entirely false sItuation. Lipps has already
said that the object is really given to us, and the Ich really gIven
to us, and that the sensations are not separate objects which stand
between us and the object. Now the aim of natural science, I
suppose, is slmply to dispose of the various appearances which are
found to be determinations ofthe Ich and of the real object so far
as they are found to have the relation to the subject which they
were supposed to have only to the thing - or rather, so far as they
are found to have relations and to be distinguishable m thought
from the thing. The goal of science, consequently, would be a
system of terms in relation, of terms the nature of each of wruch
would be constItuted by its place in the system, wruch would be
completely definable by their posItion, and which would have no
characteristIcs which could be isolated from the system. Every
empirical diSCIpline, of course, uses terms the explanation of wruch
would fall outslde of that system in which they are explanatory;
terms wruch we require a fresh point of view to analyse.
The attitude of science, then, involves the constitution of a
larger and larger limbo of appearance - a larger field of reality
which is referred to the subjective side of experience. Economics
is appearance for the biologist, biology for the chemist. Sunilarly,
social psychology is appearance to the indiVidual psychologist. It
is when we ask what the simple terms of indIvidual psychology are
that I am at a loss.
:For the relation of appearances (the appearances which con-
dition both self and object) to an ultimate external reahty is not
the province of anyone science to decide, inasmuch as fields of
73
discourse are objective or subjective in different contexts, and as
things are non-mental in various ways, so they can be mental in
various ways, and if the subject-matter of psychology is to be
appearance in relation to the self, we have not one science, but a
whole universe of sciences, corresponding to the self as found
expressed in the structure of social civilization, in its works of
science, in the laws ofthought, in image or III sensation.
I think, then, that Lipps has been decelved into conclusions
which are inconsistent with his own admirable division of mental
and physical, by the tacit assumption that in the sciences other
than psychology we abstract from the psychical aspect. The
psychical aspect, he has shown himself, is always present: wherever
there ilil the fch, there IS a continuity between the fch and Its
object; not only in the case of perception, but in every case of
knowledge. In science we have only abstracted from one or several
spheres of mental reality - and from physical reality at the same
bme. We have then done III every science what Lipps asks us to
do specially m the case of psychology-considered a field of reality
as a condition and expression of the self.
VVhat, if this be true, has Lipps in mind as the field of psycho-
logy? Simply, I think, the old chimera, 'states of consclOusness"
meanings torn from their reference. You have first a mind
essentially related to a world. In order to study the mmd, you
abstract it from the world - but abstract the world with it, and
double the world to get a real world. You then assert that the first
world simply exists as presentation, and that reference is to
your world, and not to the subject's. And all this comes from the
fallacy of treating a difference of aspects as a difference of things.
We meet, however with definitions which make no distinction
between mental and non-mental. Thus Miss Wodehouse's (p. 13)
content is as objective as object; psychology does not expand the
contents of the object but limits them 'because it is interested
in their shape' (p. !ZO). This is an important, and radICally different,
definition, of the subject-matter of psychology, the external
world and the mental world are of exactly the same stuff, and
are ultimately identical, but as experienced are both fragments.
74
The world examined by the psychologist is the world which is the
content of consciousness in relation to the various elements m the
constltution of the subject which condition it; and these elements,
I should suppose, may be either that part of the external world
which has previously been content of that consciousness, or the
physiological and psycho-physical conditions. On the one hand
the content IS continuous wIth the whole external universe (p. ~ 1 )
and on the other hand with the history of that subject. In the
latter relation it is the subject-matter of psychology: psychology,
accordingly, deals rather with the personal than with the
'psychical' .
This diVIsion would seem to give us two clear groups of objects.
But I am not convinced that the connections of content may not
be reduced to connections of the real world on the one hand and
to physiologlCal connections on the other. Memory content must
be consIdered as connected according to the realIty remembered
and in the same way as the reality l'emembered: that is, the laws
which hold of the reality hold of the memory connections in theIr
reference; the laws of the physical world hold of ideas of that
world so far as those ideas are real ideas. And so far as those ideas
are not real, as from being a specification they are merely a
tendency, and from a tendency merely an undifferentiated feelmg,
the idea is dissolved into physiological conditions. So far as the
idea is real, we have seen above, it is not idea; and so far as it IS
not real it is not idea. This is equally true of ldeas of imagination
or of ideas of memory. It is not true that the ldeas of a great poet
are in any sense arbitrary: certainly in the sense III which imagina-
tion is capricious, the ideas of a lunatic or an imbecile are more
'imaginative' than those of a poet. In really great imaginative
work the connections are felt to be bound by as logical necessity
as any connections to be found anywhere; the apparent lrrelevance
is due to the fact that terms are used with more or other than their
normal meaning, and to those who do not thoroughly penetrate
their significance the relation between the aesthetic expansion
and the objects expressed is not visible.
But it is no wise true that the connections of content are
75
subjective and peculiarly subject-matter for psychology. They are
personal if you like, but a work of imagmation is never simply
personal. So far as we consider it as only personal- i.e. significant
only to the author - we explain it not as imagination but as the
product of pathological conditions. Thus we are tempted to
explain a poem of Mallarme as we explain dreams, as due to
morbid physiological activity. And if it is said that this radical
separation would do away with all criticism, we may pomt out
that criticism - involving the circumstances under which a work
was produced - is other than psychology in that It includes at
every point a reference to a real world with which the other IS
compared: a procedure which in psychology is inadmissible.
It is sufficIent for the purpose of this chapter to have argued
that a 'psychological event' can not be torn from its context and
be set in a context of other purely psychological events: the
problem of the relation of an idea to the real world from the point
of view of epistemology must be taken up later. The theory of the
idea which I have proposed, and which I believe to be substantially
in harmony with Mr Bradley's metaphysics, implies to this pomt
only that the idea, as you try to grasp it as an object, either
identifies itself with the reality or melts back in the other direc-
tion into a different reality, the reality of its physiological basis.
Ideas in relation with the nervous system on the one hand, and
with the intended reality on the other, may have a certain eXlstence
in epistemology, but have no pretension to a purely 'psychological'
existence. And here I find myself in conflict with much that Mr
Bradley has had to say on the subject of psychology, especially in
his articles on Active Attention, on the Definition of Will, and on
a Defence of Phenomenalism in Psychology.I7 The first two artICles
are explanatory - they substitute for data of immediacy
universal connections; we may therefore inquire what these data
are. The last article defends a view very similar to those which I
have been attacking.
'Psychology" says Bradley (p. ~ 8 ) , 1 8 'is to be concerned with
psychical events, and such an event is whatever is inunediately
experienced, either as a whole or as an integral aspect of a whole,
76
and is not for the purpose in hand taken otherwise than as an
adjective happening to and qualifying a particular soul. These
facts are events because they happen in time, each with a place in
the order of the "real world" in general. ... [T]he meaning of one
soul or subj ect, ... must be fixed arbitrarily.' (P. 35)19: 'You can
only explam events ... by the laws of their happening, and It does
not matter for your purpose, so long as these laws work, whether
they possess ultimate truth or are more or less fictitlOus and false.'
The difficulty which I find with such a dennitlOn lies in the defini-
tlOn of event. Psycillcal event, It is saId, is immediately expenenced
(disbnct from experience). And the question I raise is whether in
our conscious hfe anytillng is immediately expenenced except
experience itself And in the second place the event taken as hap-
pening to that particular soul is not the same event from the point
of VIew of that soul, for from the latter point of VIew the event
does not 'qualify' the soul, but qualifies external reality. And If
from another point of view, then what IS the event? Till you have
'the laws of their happening' how can you be sald to have the
event? An event, I should suppose, is a what - a that somehow
mterpreted, for you must single out some one aspect, you must
occupy some point of view not internal to the event, before there
is anything of which there can be a law.
Mr Bradley's position involves a parallelism between knowledge
as the reahty which it intends and knowledge as event in the soul
(p. 30).20 'To say that ideas and judgements do not happen at 11
certam time, and that in this sense they fail to be occurrences,
seems clearly contrary to fact .. .'21 '[T]he idea or the judge-
ment, ... is assuredly a psychical event .... A truth, we may say,
is no truth at all unless it happens in a soul and is thus an event
which appears in time.'22 This seems to me to involve a confusion
of the psychological point of view with the metaphysical From the
latter standpoint this statement is correct; from the former it
seems palpably false. A truth as truth must of course appear inde-
pendent of the soul as experienced m the perception of that truth,
and its oneness WIth the soul (as truth) IS a matter of metaphysical
unity and not relative to its happening 'in' a soul. A truth as such
77
is quite independent of finite soul, and we may say that it is the
finitude of truth which constitntes the finite soul. So far then, as
it is an event it IS not a truth or a judgment at all. And so far as
we are conscious of it as an event it is not in the same sense the
truth' that we are conscious of. In knowledge then the event of
knowledge is not somethIng that enters into consciousness.
It is certamly not from the pomt of view of the su bj ect that the
idea or judgment IS an event, and from the subject's viewpomt
the only laws of happemng are the laws of the world of which he
is conscious, while from the outsider's point of view, the only laws
are laws whICh lie beyond the consciousness of the subject. But,
it wIll be said, the subject is conscious of previous Ideas and
judgments as events in his own career: if he were conscious of
them merely as realities apprehended, he would not be aware of
his past at all, for it would not be his past, but the past of the
world. We are constantly passing, that is to say, from the judgment
as reality to the judgment as a qualification of ourself - a view
which my own account of memory is obhged to support. I again
offer, however, the theory of identity there presented, and
emphasize the fact that memory is an elaborate and artificial
product, which can be treated from the point of view of psycho-
physics as subject to laws - though only so far as it is not
memory - which serves a practical need, and does not pretend to
give anything which was ever as such actual. As in memory of an
external reality we may have an image which refers to a reality, so
in recollection of our own judgment we assert an objective (that
we judged so and so), an assertion which refers to the judgment as
an event but which constitutes it as an event in the act of assertion.
For a reference, as I have suggested in several passages, does not
everywhere imply the existence of that to whIch it refers, outside
of the reference itself.
Let us say, then that in memory and in the observation of the
actions of others we have reference to events which are never as
such actual. Have we not here a consistent enough point of view
to determine a subject-matter? I would offer two objections. In
the first place, these events as psychic phenomena have no laws.
78
For internally, their relations among themselves are determined
only by the real world from the point of view of the subject, and
externally by the real world from the point ofVlew of the subject,
and externally by the real world from somebody else's point of
view
23
; wlule their mid-way reality is at once greater and less than
such as science can grasp. And in the second place the soul is not
something definite to which phenomena can be attached all on the
same plane, but varies with the meaning which each phenomenon
has for it. In order to know what a particular event is, you must
know the soul to which it occurs, and the soul exists only in tll.e
events which occur to it; so that the soul is, in fact, the whole
world of Its experience at any moment, while both soul and event
transcend that moment. The soul is its whole past so far as that
past enters into the present, and it is the past as implIed in the
present. (Appearance, p. fl75): "But at anyone time ... the soul is
the present datum of psychical fact, plus its actual past and its
conditional future.' But I cannot feel satisfied with the statement
(Mind, 33, p. fl9)24 that "The soul ... is the dIspositions which it
has acquired'. "In saying that the soul has a disposition of a certain
kind, we take the present and past psychical facts as the subject,
and we predicate of this subject other psychical facts, which we
think it may become.' (Appearance, p. fl76) Now I questIon
whether it is ever a "psychical' fact whICh we take as the
subject in a disposition. Men are avaricious, generous, vicious,
or self-sacrificing, and these qualities I suppose are dispositions.
But avarice and generosity are not psychical events but social
interpretations of behaviour, behaviour involving the whole
organism. What is in the mind of the avaricious or generous man
is not avarice or generosity, but a real world qualified in a certain
way, and these qualifications are interpreted or introspected as
subjective, conditioned by a disposition. But to be "subjectIve'
is not to be mental, and to be a disposition is ultimately to be a
disposition of the whole organism - so that I can see no difference
between psychical and physical disposition. For disposition must
rest upon something which is actual and this must be a physical
structure.
79
What then as to the doctrine of ::Vir Bradley (op. cit., Mind,
p. 41),25 that an emotlOn can be attended to? I belIeve this doctrine
to be correct. For on the theory which I have outhned above,
pleasure as pure feeling is an abstraction, and in reality is always
partially objective: the emotion is really part of the object, and IS
ultimately just as objective. Hence when the object, or complex
of objects, is recalled, the pleasure is recalled in the same way, and
is naturally recalled on the object side rather than on the subject
side: though it tends (op. cit., Mind, p. 44)26 to instate itself as an
active pleasure. *
As to the theory of aUention** and the theory of will , * I think
that they illustrate in detail the objections that I have raised in
general. Will, we are told, is the self-realization of an idea; and
this explanation I protest against as metaphysics and not
psychology. I cannot feel, with regard to an explanation of a
faculty which explains it by reference to something which falls
outside of consciousness, that such is a psychological explanation.
Mr Bradley is concerned with will only in operatIOn. '\Vith will
taken in its full sense I agree that psychology cannot concern
itself'(i.e., will as 'standing tendency').27 And with will aslam aware
of Wlll I cannot concede that this definition has anything to do.
'[BJecause I am aware of the idea as itself making the change ...
I am aware also that this change is the work of myself. '28 But the
idea has to be my idea. 'Provided ... that the idea has remained
qualified in my mind as the act of another, it cannot in its proper
character, and as such, realIze itself in my person. '29The fact that the
idea has to be my idea seems to give away the whole case; for so
far as it is my idea it is already willed.
So far as will is not felt, I cannot see any reason for using the
concept at all; and so far as it is felt, it requires no explanation
and can find none. Mr Bradley's account might be a true account
of what goes on when we think that there is will; but m order to
be a true account it would have to justify its point of view. Ideas,
* Cf. T. P. Nunn, Proc. Arist. Soc., 1909-10, p. 192.
** 'Active Attention', Mind, 1909, No. 41. 'DefimtlOn of Will', :Mind, Nos. 44,
46,49.
80
The Psychologist's Treatment oJ Knowledge
as I have claimed, are not objects, but occupy a half-way stage
between existence and meaning. From a purely external point of
view there is no will; and to find will in any phenomenon requires
a certain empathy; we observe a man's actions and place ourselves
partly but not wholly in his position; or we act, and place our-
selves partly in the position of an outsider. And this doubleness of
aspect is in fact the justification for the use of the term. Another
person, and in its degree another thing, is not for us simply an
object; there is always, I believe, a felt continuity between the
object and oneself. The only error lies in regarding this community
as due to the common possession of a character which belongs to
both subject and object as such, and belongs to each indepen-
dently. This character is then treated as a thing. But will is not a
character of consciousness purely, and it is not at all a character
ofthings as such; it arises only in a conflict, and is in the primitive
mmd cognized as a character of object as naturally as of subject,
so that it is only by a certain degree of abstraction that we come
to think of ourselves as wilhng and of objects as moved by 'forces'
- an expression which simply indicates the degree of objecti:fica-
tion which we have succeeded in establishing. For these reasons
I am inclined to regard will as inde:finable and as offering no
problem. If we are to have a psychology we must postulate a
faculty of will, though we hold will to be :finally mere appearance.
And such psychology, I think, will be not a scientific but a philo-
sophical discipline. For science deals with objects or with the
relations of objects; and will, we have said, belongs to a place
half-way between object and subject.
Attention likewise belongs in the class of half-objects. 'Popular
psychology" says Titchener (Psychology oJ Feeling and .Attention,
p. 181), 'regards attention, indifferently, as faculty and as mani-
festation of faculty.' Here, I suggest, popular psychology is right,
for popular psychology (in this sense) is the only psychology that
there is. And I believe that Bradley's theory of attention, like
Titchener's, is merely an attempt to reduce attention to some-
thing else without knowing what that something is. What can we
have, in an account of attention, but a description of physio-
p 81 E.K.E.
The Psychologist's TTeatment of Knowledge
logical conditions and a description of the reahties apprehended?
And there IS only attention, I submit, when the conditions and
the reality apprehended are confused. That this interfusion is
everywhere found does not alter the case. For It IS only as felt that
the two are confused, and when we turn this feelmg into an object
the two elements fall apart: 'We cannot attend to several dis
connected objects at once; we organize them into a single object'
("Active AttentlOn" p. !Z1).30 This I beheveto be true, but what does
it mean? That the world, so far as it IS a world at all, tends to
organize itself into an articulate whole. The real is the organized.
And this statement is metaphysics, so ifit comes to us as a novelty
it IS not psychology. From a psychological pomt of view, things
perceived are connected so far as they are perceived to be con-
nected If we contemplate several objects, and recogmze them as
disconnected, they are disconnected except for metaphysics, and
that is the complete statement ofthe case 'But is there then" says
Mr Joseph (Mind, 1911), 'no such thing as psychology ... [I]fI
were asked what it really IS, I should say, not a science, but a
collection of more or less detached inquiries, ofthe result of which
phIlosophy must take account There are for example inquiries
into "double personality" and kindred puzzles, which must affect
any theory of the real nature of the individual soul or self; there
are experiments about association-time, reaction-time, etc., which
help to explain why one man's mind works quicker than another's,
but no more throw light on the nature ofthinking than the deter-
mination of the duration of the crotchet explains the beauty of
music. [T]here are more definitely psycho-physical investigations,
e.g., into brain-localisation which may have therapeutic value,
and of course any facts about the relation of what IS mental to
what is cerebral are important to a theory of the soul, as of a
knower belonging somehow to the same whole with the known.'
I can subscribe to most of this statement. T h ~ " ' e is certainly an
important field for psycho-physics and the stUl y of behaviour,
and there are even certain processes where introspection is not
without value. But this knowledge, I insist, is knowledge either of
physiology, biology, or of the external world, and implies both a
8 ~
real known external world and a real nervous system: for we are
not to say that there is a mental content which is mental. There
is, in this sense, nothmg mental, and there is certainly no such
thing as conSCIOusness if consciousness is to be an object or some-
thing independent of the objects which it has. There are simply
'pomts of view', objects, and half-objects. SClence deals only with
objects, psychology, in the sense of rational or faculty psychology,
may deal with half-obJects, and metaphysIcs alone With the
subject, or point of view.
CHAPTER IV
The s Theory
of
'And there can be really no such science as the
theory of cognition.' (Appearance, p. 65)
- c t has been the conclusion of the foregoing chapter that no
distinct province of mental objects eXIsts as the field of
psychology; that no definition can anywhere be found to
throw the mental on one side and the physical on the other, that
we can never construct the external world from the mental, for the
external is already implied in the mental. The difference between
mental and real, or in the excellent terms of Mr Alexander be-
tween the personal and the objective, is one of practical con-
venience and varies at every moment; so that the terms content
and presentation do not stand for objects of a science but for
aspects of an object. We go on to ask, naturally, whether the
terms with which the epistemologist deals are any more sub-
stantial. The distinctions of immanent and transcendent object,
the terms real and unreal object, a priori and a posteriori
knowledge, phenomenon and reality; passive apprehension and
the activity of consciousness; these are all terms which have a
certain significance in practical knowledge. But whether thought
has more than a practical valIdity, whether there is any reality for
thought to reach and whether thought reaches it - the absolute
validity of knowledge - is the problem of the theory of knowledge.
There are evidently three divisions of the question: the problem
of the genesis of knowledge, of the structure of knowledge, and of
the possibility of knowledge. It is, I believe, the position of all
sound idealism, and I believe is the position of Mr Bradley, that
the only real problem is the second. For it may be said, in criticism
84
The Epistemologist's Theory if Knowledge
of the :first problem, that it does not deal with objects of know-
ledge, and in criticism of the third, that there are no objects
of knowledge, when the object is treated as a hard and fast
reality.
The present chapter is to consider the claims of the third
problem, and I will only touch very briefly on the question of the
'growth of knowledge'. While the problem is by no means a
negligible one, it can never occupy a place of priority in the
theory of knowledge, and the reason is simply this. We are all
agreed that the knowledge of the world possessed by man 1S
superior to that possessed by the ape, and that the knowledge of
the European is superior to that of the savage, but there remains
in this knowledge a somehow which is not resolved unless by a
theory which is not the outcome of any 'genetic' research. There
is recognized in the history which we consIder a growth, but it IS a
growth of knowledge' only in the vague or practical sense of the
world. In evolution or in the development of the child there is a
systematic alteration of values, with an outer expanslOn and an
inner elaboration of content, which we :find to be continuous with
the values and the content of our own experience. But this
alteration is a growth of knowledge only if knowledge is already
assumed; and if we make no assumptions about the validity of
our own knowledge the growth which we trace is not the growth
of knowledge at all, but is the history only of adaptation, if you
like, to environment. And in such an account, of course, our
knowledge of the environment to which we see the organism
adapting itself is taken not as absolute but as relative: we assume
only a system of relations such that our knowledge will not be
falsified on the plane on which it is knowledge. Nothing, then, is
so far known as to the nature of knowledge.
The basis of structural psychology, as we have seen, resolves
itself into physiology, and while physiology is by no means
irrelevant to the problem of knowledge, its contribution is always
indirect. Knowledge being given, physiology can suggest the
limitations and give some of the conditions of truth and error; it
gives us the background against which knowledge is set and into
85
The Epistemologist's Theory of I(:nowledge
which it tends to fade. And we are oblIged to beheve that in a
final account the knowledge which we thmk to possess and the
conditIOns of it will be necessary to explain and complete each
other. Meanwhile physiology gives an account, not of our know-
ledge as knowledge, but under some other aspect. And so long as
we have no ultImate and complete knowledge the study of these
aspects will remain relevant to epistemology. The intended object
is ulbmate reahty. But in knowing as we experience it the aspect
which is knowing is contmuous with the other aspects and can
never be definitely separated from them at any point So far as it
is knowing, there is no problem and, If there be a problem - of
which I am very doubtful- it is constituted by the relation of
knowing to the other aspects. Epistemology, therefore, is Simply
the process by which what IS at first knowledge is absorbed into
another aspect: knowing becomes known, an activity becomes an
object, and the process can be repeated ad infinitum
It is claimed, however, that epistemology occupies a position of
unique authority and constitutes a distinct sCience apart from
psychology, physIOlogy, loglC, or biology. Epistemology makes the
claim of both scientific certainty and metaphysical ultImacy. And
it is, I believe, to be repudIated by both scientist and metaphysi-
cian, by the first because the external crlteria of his science do
not concern him, and by the second because he is engaged in the
construction of a system, and must place himself at an external
point of view from which the wholly mternal aspect of knowledge
disappears. In a metaphysic such as NII' Bradley's, certainly,
there can be no place for a theory of knowledge, for the terms
whleh such a disClplme must use have not the requisite substan-
tiality. The problem, it may be remarked, has two parts which are
not infrequently confused: the problem of the knowledge of the
objects or truths wruch we do know, and the problem of knowledge
m general In the fIrst we assume the existence of knowledge and
inquire mto Its conditions; in the second we assume nothing and
inquire into the possibility of knowledge. And the fact that the
tv.o are perhaps neyer treated wholly independently must not
lead us to think that they are not two independent problems. In
86
The Epistemologist's Theory of K nozvledge
epIstemology we attempt to descrIbe a relation between the
knower and the known, to gIve a descnption which shall leave
both as we find them - which shall, that is, descnbe an experI-
ence which shall still be recognizable after the descnption, but we
ask also the very different question of the validIty and meaning
of the noetic experience, and this question can only be answered
in terms which leave the original experience unrecognizable.
The philosopher who attempts to answer eIther of these ques-
tions must, I believe, be either a dualistlc reahst or a criticlst'
(which is ultimately the same thing) for I do not propose to classify
Kant as anything but a dualistic realIst. He assumes that there IS
a real world, a world of realities of one sort or at most two; he then
mqmres how we come to know this world. And as a result of this
sharp and qUIte dogmatic diVlsion he burdens hImself wIth an the
trouble of unreal and imaginary objects, and with the problem of
error. I shall first state brIefly the cnticism of such a real world'
from the pomt of Vlew of Appearance and Reality, and elucidate
It further by critIcism of such analyses of the act of knowledge as
those of Meinong and l\lesser.
There is a dilemma which may be saId to be given at the start.
EIther the external world IS presented always as it IS, and IS never
more or other than what is gn'en. or else there is a deSCribable
relation between our knowing and that whIch is known. And If we
accept the first alternative, it is saId, we are left with no real
world at an, for anything and everything incongruous and incon-
sistent, will be equally real, and m no signincant sense will it
constitute a world'. \Ve are then to assume one real world
independent of our knowledge of it, surround consciousness with
an opaque veil of subjectivity' and ask in what form and in what
way reality penetrates this integument. \Ve assume no acquaintance
with objects except as presented, but the epIstemologist makes it
his task to prove that there is a relation between knowledge and
its object which IS not simply that of knowledge
Mr Russell (Mind, 1904<. Memong's Theory of Complexes find
Assumptions, Ill') gives a list of five theories of knm' ledge which
is suggestive.
87
The Epistemologist's Theory of Knowledge
1. '[KJnowledge does not differ from what is known ...
~ . \Ve may admit the distinction of content and object, but
hold that the latter is merely immanent.
S. -VVe may hold that the object is immanent when false,
transcendent when true.
4. We may hold that when a judgment is false there IS no
object; but when true, there is a transcendent object.
5. "Ve may hold that the object is always transcendent.'
The first ofthese is that which Mr Russell attributes to idealism,
though to what idealism he refers I am unable to discover. I
contend that everyone of these accounts is ultimately meaning-
less, OIvmg to the confusion ofthe practical with the metaphysical
points of view The last four all accept the distinction of content
and object, though upon what grounds I am at a loss to say.
'vVhen we consider the presentation of something simple, say
redness, it is evident that the presentatlOn and the object are
distinct' (Russell, ibid., p. 514) But in the first place (Chapter
Ill, p. 6 ~ ) it is not quite correct to say that redness is a presenta-
tion, and furthermore I cannot find any evidence offered for the
distinctness of presentation and object. But (Russell, ibid., p.
Q07): 'The content of a presentation exists when the presentatIOn
exists, but the object need not exist - it may be self-contradlc-
tory, it may be something which happens not to be a fact, such as
a golden mountain, it may be essentially mcapable of existence as
for mstance equalIty, it may be phYSical, not psychical, or It may
be something which dId eXIst or WlU eXIst, but does not exist at
present. What IS called the existence of an object in presentation
is really not existence at all: it may be called pseudo-existence ....
The content tends to be ignored in favour of the object; there are
no natural designations for contents, which have to be named and
distmguished by their objects.'
Such a theory of content and object is evidently based upon the
assumption of a world of real and independent objects: it assumes
that the typical case of apprehension is that of a physical object;
it forces our apprehension of 'ideal' objects into the same mould,
88
and it ends in the paradox that we may refer to an object when no
object is present. It appears to assume also that there may be
objects which are - in fact that the typical object is - merely
existent, and do not to some extent subsist as well.
I wish to recall the criticism which I directed upon 'content' in
the preceding chapter. From the argument there offered it would
appear that the golden mountain is as real and objective as any
thing else. If it were merely content the content would be the
object, and we should have to account for our error in mistaking
the one for the other. But it could not be even content unless it
mtended to be object. So far as the idea 'golden mountain' is a real
Idea, so far is it a real object. I will not however, pursue these
comments farther until I have outlIned the view of a 'real world'
which these four theories mentioned by Mr Russell seem to over
look. There is a real world, corresponding to that intended by
these theories, which is neither identical with Bradley's Reality
nor incompatible with it. And I may be at some paIns to suggest
what is essentially indefinable, what this real world IS, why it is
tempting as a starting-point for epistemology, why it is unreal
inside a metaphysical system, yet presupposed by every system.
I have agreed heartily to the views of Professor Alexander and
Dr Nunn in regard to the reality of an objects. But it is evident
that in practice this doctrIne is hopelessly untrue. "Ve are forced
to assume that some objects are real and others simply unreal; it
is only in refined practice that we find degree of reality to any
extent useful, and we never, I think, dispense WIth the blunt 'real'
and 'unreal' altogether. For without the unreal, as without the
element of negation, you cannot have a world of finite experience
at all. Such a world involves selection and emphasis, and we
cannot too frequently be told that the world of practice is sup-
ported by interest and valuation. But our interests and our values,
we shall be told vary from moment to moment. So does the real
world, according to that fragment of it which happens to be the
focus of our attention. Against the background of practical reality
that is, are various systems both social and scientific, which are so
to speak lived together in a coherence which cannot be formulated.
89
The Epistemologist' $ Theory of Knowledge
The process by which thIs world IS constructed has of course
two aspects. On the one hand the selection of certain experIences
as real and the rejectIon of others bUIlds up the world, and on the
other hand the assumption of a real world gives a standard for
such choice; the external world is thus doubly supported in Its
externality. Thus the distinction between that content whICh is
merely personal and that which is objective is not a distinctIOn
between two classes of object absolutely, but a distinctIon valid
only so long as we support one point of view - that of practical
interest in the dIfference. There is a real world, if you like, which is
full of contradictions, and it is our attempt to orgamze this world
whICh gives the belief in a completely organized world, an hypo-
thesIs which we proceed to treat as an actuality - whence the
question how and how far we come into contact WIth this world
of absolute order.
The principle involved in the question of immanent and
transcendent objects I believe to be this: a reality intended need
not be in Itself actual, though its actuality be presupposed in the
reality of the intention. We intend, from our divers limited points
of view, a single real world, and we forget that metaphysically
this real world is only real so far as it finds realization through
these points of view. It is not my purpose at this point to expound
the doctrine of points of view, which will belong properly under
the head of Solipsism, but only to sketch the outhnes of the
position from wmch Epistemology is criticized. I repeat then that
the objective world is only actual in one or other pomt of view,
but that each point of view intends to be, not a point of view, but
the world one and impersonal, and in this double aspect, accord-
ing to which reality is on the one hand given and on the other
hand merely symbolized, I :6.nd what may be called in a way the
transcendence of the object and the justi:6.cation for the distinction
between content and object. But it must be remarked that such a
distinction has only practical validity, and does not hold where a
particular content has not been already selected as real. It is not
true to say that some objects are immanent and some transcendent
by virtue of any characteristic which can be found in them as
90
The Epistemologist's Theory 0] Knowledge
objects, for all objects are equally immanent and equally transcen-
dent. The criterion of reality, therefore, is to be found, not in the re-
lation ofthe object to the subject, but in the directness with which
the object is relatable to the (intended world - for it is not al-
ways the same sphere of reality to which we refer our objects. So
that the realIty of the object does not lie in the object itself, but in
the extent of' the relations which the object possesses without
significant falsification of itself. These relatlOns are all different
points of view upon the object - i e. they relate different aspects
to a smgle pomt of reference; in this process of relation the obj ect
itself is altered, for what was at first the object pure and Simple
becomes the object under a single aspect. And a point of view, it
may here be remarked, need not be considered as identIcal wIth
one human consciousness; so that we may be said to move from
one point of view to another when we determine an object by
another relation. If thIs be true, then the movement between one
'finite centre' and another will not differ in kind from that inside
of one consciousness, and will conSIst in the constitutlOn of' a real
world by Ideal references of many aspects.
In this case, the "real world' of epistemology (to be distin-
guished from the Reality of metaphysics) will be an essentially
indefinite world of'identical references of an indefinite number of
points of'view, particularly those of other civilized adults with
whom we come in contact, but quite possibly extending to all
finite centres with which we can establish an identical reference.
In the light of this view, and recalling the account of' Idea which
I have laboured to express in the first three chapters several ofthe
dIstinctions of Meinong appear to me elaborate superfluities I
would choose as an example his distinction of Inhalt (content) and
Gegenstand (object) with reference to Pseudoe:cistenz (pseudo-
existence). It is meaningless, Meinong says,* to speak of an object
as existent only "in der Vorstellung' ('in presentation'). 'An Object
that exists only "in my presentation", simply does not eXIst at
all ... : "Ve may now summarise as follows; existence, for the
knower, is, viewed from the standpoint of the Object, a pseudo-
* Erfahrungagrundlagen unserll8 p. 56.
91
eXIstence, and it remains only to establish what, in such cases, the
actual existent is, which is thus in the strict sense perceived.' *We
must clearly distingmsh, he says, the Inhalt of a Vorstellung (pre-
sentation) from its Gegenstand. 'If I think first of red and then of
green, it naturally cannot be the same, or a precisely sImilar pre-
sentation, whereby I first apprehend the one object and then the
other. But that which respectively distmguishes these two presen-
tations, so that the first is appropnated to the one object and the
second to the other, is their content. Clearly, the object appre-
hended in a presentation cannot possibly exist, but still less, then,
can the content, whereby It is apprehended. The latter IS a constI-
tuent of the presentation, and cannot be absent, or the presenta-
tion itself would be absent too. ,** A good deal depends, of course,
on the use of the word Vorstellung and I have been unable to find
- admitting, however, that I find Meinong an exceedmgly diffi-
cult author - that the meaning of this very obscure word IS any-
where defined; and I have occasion to complam, indeed, that just
those words are taken for granted which have the most need of new
or reVlsed definitions. What, in the quotation just given, IS the
difference of VOTstellung but the difference of object Both
VOTstellung and Inhalt seem here identical with object. For the
'idea' here in question is not a logical idea, not the idea which we
predicate of reality; the idea in this sense would be for Meinong
identical with the object, since there is no question of predicating
the Vorstellung of red ofthe real red. The idea here is the psycho-
logist's idea, which is for the psychologist an aspect of the object
" '[Elm ObJekt, das nur "m memer Vostellung" eXlStiert, elgentheh gar meht
e'Qshert . : kann Jetzt kurz sagen: die E,{lstenz, dle er erkennt, 1St,
vom Standpunkte der ObJekte besehen, eme Pseudoe,{lstenz, und es blelbt nur
festzustellen, \\as m solehen Fallen das Wlrkhch EXlstente, das also un strengen
Smne Wahrgenommene lSt '
*" 'Denke leh das eme Mal an Rot das andere Mal an Grun, so kann es
naturheh meht dleselbe resp cme genau glelche Vorstellung sem, vermoge deren
lch emmal dlesen, emmal jenen Gegenstand erfasse. Das aber, worm dlese belden
Vorstellungen Jedenfalls versehleden smd, wodureh die eme dJe5em, die andere
jt'nem Gegenstande zugeordnet 15t, das ist Ihr Inhalt. Bekanntbeh muss del'
Gegenstand, den eme Yorstellung erfasst, durehaus mcht existlCren; urn so
gewI5ser aber del' Inhalt, dUTCh den sle Ihn erfasst. Er 1St em Stuck an del'
Y orstellung, das mcht fchlen kann, ohne das die Vorstellung selbst fehlt.' . 57.)
Si
in mental context. I have already protested against amputating
this aspect for the purpose of a 'special science'; but to graft the
member on agam after it is dead seems to me even more gratuitous.
In the sense in which there are two ideas (red and green) there are
not at the same time two objects, for we have substituted the ideas
for the objects. And when we proceed to talk of the content' of an
Idea we are simply making a devious return to the object. It is not
true, I have contended, to say that an idea has an object, for idea
is (not has) a reference to an object. So far as the idea is real it
is the object, so far as the idea is unreal the object is unreal or
indeterminate.
The distinction between idea and content of idea may be
accounted for perhaps in connection with Meinong's analysls of
Ausdruck (expression) and Bedeutung (meamng).>i' 'Thus anyone
who utters, say, the word "sun", normally gives expression also,
whether he wants to or not, to the fact that a certain presentatlOn,
either of perception or imagination, is occurrmg in him. The
nature of this presentation IS determined initially by what is
presented therein, namely its object, and this object is m fact
what IS meant by the word "sun".'**
It would appear from this passage that we express the idea, but
mean the object. This being admitted, it is well to ask whether the
object, in the case of an unreal object, is merely the content of the
idea: and we find, I think, the psychologist's error of treating two
points of view as if they were one. The idea in question refers
merely to the judgment made by the hearer to the effect that the
speaker has an idea of' certain objects; but the object appre-
hended by the hearer is an object which from the point of view of
the speaker does not exist. The speaker can only mean; and even
if he means his own 'state of consciousness' what is really active is
a meaning which is not meant. The idea, furthermore, which is
* See U. Annahmen, Zte Auft., p. 24 fr.
** "Ver al&o ema das ,,'ort "Sonne" ausspncht, brmgt dadurch normaler-
ob er cs aueh Will oder mcht, zllm AlIsdrltC'J... da% sJell eine be-
btJmmte es kann naturhch so gut Wahrnehmung's Wle Eintnldungs-
vorstellung sem, m mm zutragt. Was fur eme \" ostellllng das 1St. he,tmnnt
zunachst nach dem, was dUTch vorgestellt wlrd, al&o Ihrem (;egenstande. und
dlcser Gegenstand 1st eben das, "as das "'ort "Sonne" bedeulet.' (ibld,. ;25.)
93
apprehended IS only a half-object: it exists, that is, as an object
only by our half putting ourselves in the place of the speaker and
half contemplating him as an object. The distinction, conse-
quently, between Ausdruck and Bedfutung muspl be drawn too
closely. For no expression is even expression unless we attribute
It meamng, and meamng cannot be merely contemplated, but
must be erlebt (experienced). Hence even m the case of error -
Pseudoexlstenz - the object must be transcendent or there
is no object at all: and in this I am in accord with Mr
Russel1.
The occasion for the distinction of immanent and transcendent
objects IS obviously the fact of error. No object can, we find, be
merely immanent, for the reason that so far as an object is an
object it will have relations which transcend it, transcend the
perception, relations whIch constitute it, but which ultimately
transform and absorb it. The poorer an object IS in relations, the
less it is object, and the limiting case of pseudoexistence is an
object with no relations - this would be the only purely llnagmary
object, and would of course not be an object at all, but a feehng,
which as such, would have its relations of another sort. Mr
Russell's declaration that all objects are transcendent, however
seems to provoke only new difficulties. (p. 515)32. 'It is not main-
tained, of course, that the object must emist; that would be to
maintain that a certain specific proposition must hold of the
object, whereas all that seems essential is that there should be
such an object; and the assertion of being, if not analytic, is yet
more nearly so than any other assertion.' The content, Mr Russell
tells us, lmplies the object and the relation of the content to
object. This seems very much like my theorem (p. 90), that a
reality intended need not be itself actual though its reality be
presupposed in the reality of the intention, but it leaves to the
transcendence of the object, as Mr Russell states it, only a
formal value, through its insinuation of the dIstinction between
existence and being; a distinchon which implies that Mr Russell
means no more by transcendence than Meinong does by imma-
nence. So that l\Ir Russell's theory appears to end m bankruptcy,
94
inasmuch as we are left without a criterion for either truth or
judgment or reality of object.
Meinong's theory of perception is complicated, as I suggested
above, by the division which he draws between real and ideal
objects, between inJeliora and 8uperiora. Mr Russell classifies
8uperiora as follows: relations (including likeness, differences, and
the complexes formed of terms related by a relation), and the kind
of objects (which we may call plurals) of which numbers other than
o and 1 can be asserted. The difficulty which I find with this
account is that it would seem possible for virtually any object to
be either inferior or superior: a melody, for example is superior
and composed of tones as its inJeriora; but the simple tone is
composed of vibrations, and is in fact as absolutely a zeitverleiltes
Gegenstand' as is the melody. Furthermore, it is by no means
clear what the relation of a superiu8 to its injeriora is. A melody,
as 1\1r Russell observes, is not a fifth note, what is added IS the
relation - but 'rightly related' to the constituents! Now it may
be asked whether a relation to ItS terms, whether the relatlOns is
apprehended as an object in the same way as the object, and
whether in any complex there are two superiora, the relation
umting, and the whole complex.
33
And finally I would ask (and
this is the only essential question) whether the division really
corresponds to the objects with which we actually come mto
contact.
It is only with great trepidation that I venture to interpret so
obscure an author as Alexis van Meinong. But I am interested to
note my own impression that the ideal object (wInch 1S always an
object of higher order) tends to the foreground of certamty, while
the real object drops mto the obscurity of a noumenon. So,
toward the end of the book Uber die Erfallrung$grulldlagOl (On
the Empirical Foundations oJ Our Knowledge) the author IS
apparently more and more cautious in attributmg characters to
the real object. (P. 93): The object 0 is divided into 0 ('das Dingmo-
ment" the factor of thinghood) and 0' ('die Gesamthelt del' "im
1iusseren Aspekte gegebenen Eigenschaften",' the totality of'
characteristics presented to outward \'iew) 'In respect of 0, the
95
The Epistemologist's Theory oj Knowledge
chalk is hardly to be distinguished from the inkstand; to be sure,
the perceptual presentation of the former offers us one 0' for the
purpose, and that of the latter another: but these are precisely
those sensible qualities, for whose real presence we have no evi-
dence.' (Ibid., p. 94): 'The phenomenal determinations and
are paralleled, in fact, by noumenal determinations 0l and 02' of
which it is evident, indeed, that the very same relations of com-
parison hold between them as between the o's; wherein lies im-
plicit at the same time a claim in any case self-evident, namely
that the substantial factor 0, guaranteed to us by the good
evidence already validated, does not exist, as it were, in unnatural,
or indeed impossible, isolation, but that the existent does in fact
consist of things having characteristics. '*
This is, if you like, knowledge of an external reality, but it is
knowledge of a very critical sort indeed. The 8uperiora become
Erkenntnisinstrument ('instruments of knowledge'), and while the
'aspects' furnish evidence, not for themselves but for the objects
(or of which they are aspects, yet it is the aspect
which is presented. The thing is known, but only through
appearances which exist as references to the thing, and do not
necessarily give evidence for their own existence. This seems to me
essentially the posltion of the critical philosophy: the thmg IS
known through its appearances, but as soon as the distinction is
made appearance and thing fall apart, and appearance replaces
thing as a point of attention.
The distinction between inferior and superior objects, on the
whole, strikes me as thoroughly critical. To treat things, not as
moments of objectivity, but as ultimate lumps which can be
* 'Die Krelde unterseheldet sleh vom Tmtenfass schwerlich III betreff des 0,
daftlr bletet uns die Wahrnehmungsvorstellung der ersteren frelhch ein 0]', die
des letzteren em 02' aber das sind ja eben jene senslblen Quahtaten, fur deren
Dasein wlr keine Evidenz haben: (p. 94): 'Den phanomenalen BestImmungen
oJ., 02 etc. stehen vlelmehr noumenale Bestimmungen
1
, 01 ere. gegenuber,
von denen eben eVident ist, dass zWlSchen ihnen die namhchen Verglelchungs-
relahonen gelten Wle zwischen den 0', worin zugletch die aUerdmgs selbstver-
standhche Behauptllng beschlossen liegt. dass das slIbstantlelle Moment 0, das
uns durch die berelts geltelld gemachte gute Evidenz geslchert ist, nlcht etwa in
unnahlrhcher oder eJgentlich unmoghcher Isolierthelt eXlsbert, sondern dass das
Exisherende doch jedenfalls Dmge mlt Elgenschaften smd.'
96
grasped after all relations* have been stripped away, seems to be
the attempt of both Meinong and Kant. To treat Ideal relations
as 'superior' objects, somehow built upon the real objects, and m
a sense dependent upon them (Russell, op. cit., p ~ 0 7 ff.)34 IS a
step toward makmg relations into categones. For It appears (un-
less I misinterpret) that the ideal relations are more certainly
known than the real, being (in Meinong's sense) a priori, and the
objects of'111ner perceptlOn' are more certainly known than those
of outer percephon. (Op. cit., p. 99)35: 'Thus m dealmg WIth Ideal
objects, there is no need at all to disclaim the influence of sub-
j echvlty, but so far as the eVidence is not stIll to seek, tlns leads
merely to a sort of selectlOn among the equally aVallable superiora,
whose totality the mtrinsically limited intellect cannot attempt to
assess But this subjechvlty 111 no way compromIses the Yahdlty of
what we are able to know a prior-i, once we obtam it. Thus thmgs-
m-themselves are hke, unlike, etc.'**
But It would appear that this likeness among objects IS a
matter of inference and not of direct acquamtance. "Ve do not
know reality in substance, we know it in relation: we know, that
is, a relation among content whICh cannot be falsified when
carried over to the thing, inasmuch as the content is only content
with reference to the thing, so that the relation is not directly
known of the content as such. The profoundest obscunty enfolds
the notion of Adaquatheit (adequateness), an Ideal relation
between the object of the idea and realIty (Annahmen, p. 263). If
TVirklichkeit (actualIty) is real, then in the apprehenslOn of an
ideal obj ect (cf. i,bid., p ~ 6 5 ) I do not see what the relatIOn of
Adaquatheit between the Ideal object apprehended and the 'r('d.l'
ideal object can be, for there cannot be two sets of Ideal objects,
.. 'For a thmg to eXist It must possess Identity .. and further. thiS HlentJty IS
Ideal.' Appearance, p, 61.
** 'So Wlrd man m betrefi' idealer GegenstJ.nde den Emfillss der Subjectlvltat
durchaus mcht m Abrede zu stellen brauchen; dlese fuhrt aber, sowelt die
EVldenz mcht ausblelbt, nur zu emeT Art Auswahl unter den glelChsam verfug-
baren Superloren, deren Ge<;amthelt der durch seme "atur begrentzte Intellekt
zu ermessen gar mcht versuchen kann. Aber die Gultlgkelt d"',,cn, was WJT, "Q
Wle wir einmal beschafi'en sind, a priori zu erkennen vermug'en, "Ird dllr<'h <tll'be
SubjechvltJ.t In kemer Welse m Frage gestcUt. Die Dmg", an &wh Mnd abo
glelCh, unglelch ete.'
G 97
1. 1..1:
The Epistemologist' 8 Theory oJ Knowledge
and the ideal relation between the Ideal object apprehended and
the real object can be nothmg more than a relation ofidenbty. In
thIs case the Adaquatheit must be between the real content of an
idea and a real complex, whICh would mean that in knowledge we
do not apprehend relatIOns but a specIfic case ofrebtion, and that
the complex of terms related is not ideal but real, and that the
relation of aspect to thmg IS always a real relatlOn.
We are here in full cry after the familiar ignisfatuu8 of episte-
mology, the search for terms, which persist m dissolving into
relations. The reliance upon 'inner perception' is I think only
another case of retreat to a relation as more secure than a thmg.
It IS evidently the conclusion of the precedmg chapter that there
is properly no such thing as internal perception, and that in any
case it provides no more certain knowledge than outer perceptlOn,
but perhaps less, and certainly later. There is surely no more
evidence in memory* than in perception, whether it be the memory
of a feelmg, desire, or perception. To pass from the subject to the
content of a perception is not in general to pass from the less to
the more certain. For as we have seen, every perception has an
object, and whether that object is 'real' or not depends simply on
the number and kind of relations which, in a particular context,
we may for practical purposes demand: reality is a convention.
To fall back on the content is simply to assert a quasi-object:
there was an experience, as if .... To make an object of the
content is to attend to something quite as uncertain in evidence
as any other object. The content objectified, that is, is something
which was never as such experienced; because the I which attends
to the content is a wider, more developed I than the I which first
experienced the content. So that the content is not in any exact
sense a part of the self, and is subject to exactly the same con-
ditions of evidence as any other object. There will be, then,
eVIdence for object and evidence for content, but not necessarily
" Bradley, .1find, AprillS99, p. 160: 'Our justificatIOn for regardmg memory as
in g-cneral accurate 1. briefly thiS, that by taking such a course we are best able to
order and hll.1I110mZe our world. There IS m the end no other actual or pOSSible
criterIOn of fact and truth, and the search for a final fact and for an absolute datum
is everywhere the u r ~ u i t of a mere ignis fatum.'
98
The Epistemologist' 8 Theory of Knowledge
stronger for one than for the other, and in most cases, I am
inclmed to believe, stronger for object than for content.
I have already raised objectIOns to the drawing and quartering
of reality into real and Ideal objects: this objection I should now
lIke to amplIfy. I seem to find here some confusion as to Just what
15 ImplIed by the word object Rnd I CRnnot but feel that the dis-
tmctIon of real and Ideal, mfenor and superior ob.Jects, IS a
clumsy substitute for the notion of degrees of truth and reality.
It IS admItted (Russell, op cit, P 352)36 that the dIvisIOn between
objects and objectrves IS not altogether sharp (cf. 'black-hoard'
and 'the blackness of the board'). May we not then fairly mquire
whether there can be found a smgle case of an obj cet whIch cannot
be treated as an objective? or indeed of an objectIve wluch cannot
be treated as an object Even the perceptIOn of the f:lmlliar
epIstemologist's table can be treated as the assertIon that certain
experiences are given - the table bemg only the condensed aspect
of the objective asserted. And as Memong affirms that a percep-
tIOn IS also an Existenzulteil (existentIal Judgment), so any Judg-
ment involves as well the perception of the judgment (i e , the
perceptIOn of Its correctness)
The object has not yet been exactly defined. An object 1S [Cs
such a point of attention, and thus anything and everything to
which we may be said to (hrect attentlon IS an obj ect.
But the objects among which we hve are much more than this;
here we have abstracted from everything about a thing which
could localize it either m It 'subjective' or in an 'objectl\"e' world.
The element of objectivity is the capaCIty of anything to be, or to
be considered as (the dIstmction will explain Itself later) a pomt
of attention, but the point of attentIon IS of course only an
abstraction. It IS only as the point of attention becomes qualified
- becomes a 'what - that it is even a that, a number of charac-
teristics, none of which is essential to Its objectivity, and none
of which is objective in the sense of being an object, nevertheless
constitute its objecti' ity: its tllaincss Ii'> m dIrect ratio to it"
'l,ltatness. And the thing, in ordrr to be a thillg ('Yen, must b , ~
capable of entering into a kind of existence in which It lS not a
99
thmg I do not argue that a thing ceases to be a thing when it
ceases to be a point of attention: this is I beheve supposed to be
the point of VIew of subjective idealism. For I do not recogmze
the valIdIty of the question. There is an Identity which persIsts,
an identity due to which the objectivity is not annirulated, but
rendered meanmgless The thing does not cease to exist, it eXIsts
in other ways, ways which are not thinghood, but can only be
expressed or suggested in terms of thmghood. And WIthout the
potentialIty of these other forms of existence the thing would not
even be a thmg. existence, I mean to say, is not 2dentical with
thillghood. The world is not made up of thmgs, nor of things and
'other things'; but existence IS capable of appearing more or less
under the aspect of thinghood The account which I offer is, I
know, anything but lUCId! I can only plead in excuse that the point
is one of the most difficult in the theory of knowledge. But one of
the consequences, which WIll perhaps go to make the matter more
intellIgible, is that there are no objects of strictly lower order, and
no objects of strictly higher order. What Meinong has in mmd are
two aspects of existence which when contemplated, are both
objects, but so far as they are objects, are of the same order. The
only alternative, I insist, is to assume that the lower objects alone
are objects, and the higher, categorIes, that only 'real' things exist,
and that in point of fact there are no real things, but only thmgs
in themselves, i e. hypothetical limIts. And from this pomt of VIew
Memong has, as I mtImated, only a step to take to Kant.
The whole question IS, as Mr Russell suggests, closely bound up
with the theory of bme. Meinong maintams that the objects of
lower order may be dIrectly perceIved. But It is surely eVIdent that
so fd.r as an objiO'ct has meaning it is not an object ofthls sort. For
meaning mvolves relatlOns; at least (we need) the relatlOn of
identIty* through which a universality of function is recogmzed
through a dn'erslty of situation.
* 'For a thll1g' to It mu..,t PO,.,c" IdentIty; and Identity seems a possessIOn
'1\ lth a ... haractt'r at b",t doubtful If It IS merely Ideal, the thmg Itself can hardly
bp rta1. .. \ Ild till' Id"ntleul content IS called Ideal because It given
":"I,jence. E,htt'n,'c l' I!lven only m presentatIOn, and, on the other hand, the thlllg
b a thmg only If It> t':-'I,tence goes beyond the now, and extends mto the past.'
Appearance. pp 61-::,
100
And I do not see how you can make the distmction between
superiora and iriferiora at all unless you claIm the eXIstence and
the perceptiblhty of iriferiora apart from superiora. Surely the
whole construction falls to the ground once you admit their
inseparabIlity. For in this case there not only is no logical pnority,
but the one is so dependent for Its existence upon the other that
the two are only discriminated aspects of the same moment of
objectiVlty, and we may say that in a sense neIther of the two IS
the object we know.
The 'object whlCh we know' IS however only a certam aspect.
We encounter a difficulty in the fact that we are forced to use the
same term 'object' for more than one aspect. For it IS clear that
the slIghtest consideration of the nature of an object analyses
ideal from real elements. Any description must bring to ltght
elements which subsist rather than exist, and some elements are
chosen as eXlstents simply wIth reference to others that do not:
none can be saId to be m itself purely eXIstent You cannot get a
world of real thmgs by joinmg together a number of' subsistents
wIth a number of' existents, for it turns out that there is nothing
in the world whIch IS wholly m tune - there are, that IS, no pure
thats. No object, it is ullphed, is merely an object. for the real
presence of ideal elements m the sllllplest and most objectiyc of
objects imphes a kinship between that object and all other objects
in which that idea element is exemplIfied; the mere identity of an
object with itself constitutes a relatlOn between that object and
all other objects So that the curious dualism of Mr Hussel1
(Problems, pp 99-100) which has much in common with obnous,
though I can hardly think correct, mterpretations of Plato, wIll
not hold good of a world which is always partially in tllne, but
never wholly in tune, with respect to any of its elements
"What constitutes a real object, accordingly, is the practIcal
need or occaSIOn. ,Ne may treat, that is, an object of attention as
a term or as a complex as occasion demands, and It IS only a
questlOn of practice to what point, under aualY51s, it rem. tins the
same object. And it will always be a questIon on your hands just
what it is that persists in time. Ordinarily there IS no dtfflculty,
101
for the object is not bestimmt; it :fluctuates as occasion demands,
and as elements in it are treated as real or as ideal, but as the
terms are analysed mto relations, it appears finally that nothing
is in time except time itself. This point of view, however, is of
course only a limit, and is never reached.
So much for the 'existence' of 'real' objects. It will be said on
the other side that there are objects which are purely ideal.
relatIOns, such as Identity and difference, and the objects of pure
mathematJcs. To this also I must object. vVe intend ideal objects,
just as we intend real ones, and m practIce the dlfference in
intention is dlfference in realIty. But I do not see how, in a critical
examination of first principles, such a distinction can maintain
itself absolutely. The objection is as follows. The existent and the
subsistent are two aspects of reality which are intended but never
actually grasped, and the difference between them is not the differ-
ence between two classes of object, for in sofar as they are objects
they are of the same sort, the difference IS extra-objective. What
for example do we attend to when we make an object of the
relation 'difference'. So far as it is an object, it is not a relation;
it is something correspondmg to that relatIOn in the world of
objects: not as a correspondence of two separate entitles, but by
continuous transItion. And this object IS subject to all the diffi-
culties ofthe existent object in reversed order. As a relation it is a
relation of terms; as an object it is a simple term or a complex of
terms again related. It Wlll not do to say that the relation is
apprehended in a case of' itself; that the relation dIfference is
grasped through the dIfference of a specific content, red and
green. For this is to admit that the true object is the complex
(a) red-different-fram-green, or (b) difference-of green-fram-red.
(a) and (b) are eVldently the same object m one sense and different
objects in another. The practical attention is m the same direc-
tion, but there IS a dIfference of emphasis: one cannot say
absolutely that the objects are the same. So far as we regard It as
the same (a) will represent the tendency in the dIrection of
existl'llCe, and (b) the tendency in the direction of subsistence:
but red-and-green 011 the one hand and difference on the other
102
The Epistemologist' 8 Theory oJ Knowledge
will never be actualized. \Ve do not need to refute the protest that
difference is not different, and that whiteness is not white, in order
to reach this conclusion. For we mean only that neither subsistence
nor existence can be real, and that what IS mtended m the act of
attending to an object is always something real.
The last point needs some elucidation. An abstraction, it IS here
argued, is not merely as such an object of attention. The abstrac-
ban has an individual existence, though not independent of that
from which it is abstracted, and It is this individual existence
which is the object so far as there is an object. If there is given in
pnmary experIence a real object A from which we abstract the
supenor ideal object a, then a is at once somethmg more and
something less than A It is less in that it IS mtended to be merely
a subsistent aspect of A, and more in that it has an eXlstence of
its own, with condItIons to a large degree independent of A.. And
in this way it is also in a sense less than itself, m that being a
subsistent, it is limited as well by conditlOns of existence. ThIS
leads to the consideration of the relation of symbol to that which
it symbolizes. *
I mean here by symbol both what NIr Peirce calls by that name
and what he calls an eicon; excluding the index.
37
Symbol, I mean,
in the sense of the real (or rather objective) end of a continuity
whlCh terminates at one end in an intended existent or subsistent
and at the other end in an object (eifaasbar, apprehensible) which
must have both existent and subsistent aspects. Now in any use of
a word which symbolizes an abstraction the actual object of atten-
tion, I submit, IS exceedingly variable: there is not simply one
determinate object in various contexts, but the object varies with
the context. Thus, in any use of an abstract term, we may distin-
guish between the logical meaning, which is an intended object, and
the real meaning, which is a part of the experience and not an object
real or intended. For the intended object we always substitute to
abqtraeilon (whakl'er Itq orlgm) Ib in the end ddenqlblc. For they are
none of them qUIte true, and With each the amount of possible error mu-t remam
unknown. The buth aSberted IS not, and cannot be, taken as real hy The
background i& ignored bl:>cause It Iq to make no difference . But an
assumptIon ofthls kind ObvlOuslygoes beyond our knowledge: Appearancf,p.478.
103
perhaps a greater or a less degree the present symbol It must be
emphasized, however, that there is properly speaking, no relation
between the symbol and that which It symbolizes, because they
are continuous. The realIty without the symbol would never be
known, and we cannot say that it would even exist (or subsist),
but on the other hand the symbol furnishes proof of the reality,
inasmuch as without the reality It would not be that symbol: i.e.
there would be an Identity left which would for our purposes be
irrelevant. The word 'relation' would not be the word 'relation'
WIthout the reality 'relatIOn' which is not in Itself an object, fof
no word can eXIst WIthout a meaning, and if the word 'relatlOn'
did not have the meanmg 'relation' It would have to have some
other meaning. You cannot, that is to say, determine two reahtles,
the word and its mealllng: the word (here the eXIstent) is con-
tinuous with the meaning (here subsistent). It consequently
transpires that neither the word alone (for there is no word alone)
is the object, for the logical meaning (which IS an abstractIon and
cannot be grasped wlthout the word) nor the total of word and
meaning, for there is no total; word and meaning being con-
tinuous, and the continmty not an object. =1-38
The (true) object, then, is never a mere universal, nor a mere
particular, nor a complex composed of universals and particulars.
It was known, I should suppose, by Plato, that universals and
particulars cannot be in any meaningful sense related, inasmuch
as they are not separate existences And so I cannot find any more
satisfaction in the account of Mr Russell than m that of Meinong.
* The folIowmg passage appears to have some appropriateness -'Ye must
attach some meanmg to the words we use, If we are to speak slgmficantly and not
utter nOise; and the meanmg we attach to our words must be somethmg
"Ith which we are acquamted. Thus when, for example, we make a statement
about Julms Caesar, It IS plam that JulIus Caesar hImself IS not before our mmds,
smee we are not acquamted With hlffi. 'We have in mmd some descrlptwn of JUllUS
Caesar .... "the founder of th<> Roman Empire". or, perhaps, merely "the man
whose name" as .Illl/il,' ('or8ar". (In thiS .T'Il1 inS Caf8ar is a nOIse
or shape With \\ hlCil "e af(' acqunmted ) Thus our &tatement does not mean qUIte
,\ hallt seems to mean, but means somethmg mvo!vmg, of .T ullUs Caesar,
so m" descriptIOn Ofl11lIl composed wholly of particulars and umversals With which
\\ c' are aeqllamted.' Russell, Problems, pp. 58-9. But I find the nohon of acquam-
tance completely unsatJsfadory.
104
The Epistemologist's Theory of I{ nowledge
For Mr Russell, as for Meinong, universals or particulars may be
known by direct acquamtance. But whereas for both
seem to be treated as direct objects, Russell's acquaintance
certainly refers to another kind of knowledge than that of objects
Thus acquaintance is defined as 'direct cognitive relation to that
obj ect .... '* The cognitive relation here is presentation. Sense-data,
universals, and perhaps the self are thus known. Now whatever
may be said of universals, neither sense-data nor the self are
known primitively by what is commonly called presentation, i e.
presentation as an object: for wc are surely somehow 'acquamted'
Wlth sense-data and the self m the practical apprehensIOns of
objects long before we make ohjects (presentations) of the sense-
data themselves.
The theory of Meinong starts from the postulate of the reality
of objects - everythmg that is real 1S an object. 1\lr Russell
starts apparently from the reality of uIllversals and sense-data,
and from these elements late in the order of knowledge;'* he bUllds
up the external world. '\Ve have acquaintance', says Mr Russell,
111 a passage whICh stnkmgly recalls Locke (Problems, pp. f>1-2),
'm sensatlOll with the data of the outcr senses,*** and 111 Intro-
spection Wlth the data of what may be called the inner scnse -
thoughts, feelings, desires, etc ... In additIon to our acquam-
tance with particular existing thmgs, we also hase acquatntunce
with what we sbdl call uni/versals, that IS to say, genel'alldeas, such
as whiteness, diversity, brotherhood, and so on.' Inasmuch as we are
stated (Ib'id., ,152) not to be acquainted WIth phYSical ob.iects it !lIlt,\'
be inferred that we are not acquainted ,nth anythmg in lts
character of objeet, but only in the felt whole of experience; Inth
the interesting consequence that objects are not directly known
but inferred, and that anything which IS named IS so fu' not
* 'Knowledge by ,\c'1uamtance and Knowledge by DC'iCnptlOn', J'roc. Ari'f.
Sac, 1910-11.
** ef '. . [L la mentalih:' de, 'OClete' lllferwureq . comporte blC'll dc" !'<'pn'-
,entatlOn, ab.,tralk,>, et de, repre'>cntatIon., g't'nerale,; lll-ll' III "eUe albtral't!Oll, m
cette gC'neraIJte ne sont de nos concept,,' Le\y-Br}hl, Lr., Fu",'1 ",liS
MEn/ale." p 187.
*** Cf. Nettleslup, Remains, I, pp. 176-7.
105
among our acquaintance. And here again we encounter an lll-
teresting rapprochement of realism to Kantianism. The entities
(to use as non-comrmttal a term as possible) which we know (by
acquamtance) are not objects but means by which we apprehend
objects, while the object is directly qUIte beyond the span of our
knowledge. There are, on this interpretation, 'no such things' as
objects, there are only experiences. 'All names of places-London,
England, Europe, the Earth, the Solar System - similarly involve,
when used, descnptions which start from some one or more par-
ticulars with whlch we are acquainted. I suspect that even the
Universe, as consIdered by metaphysics, involves such a connection
with partICulars . .j. In logic, on the contrary, where we are concerned
not merely With what does exist, but wlth whatever mIght or
could exist or be, no reference to actual particulars is involved.'
(Problems, p 56). In makmg a statement about something known
only by description, Mr Russell says, we may intend to make the
statements about the oqject Itself - but we never do so (ibid , p.
56). To know an object is simply to know that there lS that object:
we know only an objective which asserts an eXlstence, and to say
that we have direct acquamtance with that objective is not to
make the object any more real.
Apparently another person may be an intended object, but can
be a real object only to the person himself - and a person is not
an object to himself, because he is directly acquainted With him-
self, and acquaintance is not a subject-object relation. ** The
world thus appears as an ideal construction of descriptions linked
to the physiological and to the logical system.
V\'hat then is the relation of universals and particulars in the
world of objects? 'A. thing, ofthe every-day sort is constituted by a
bundle of sensible quahties belonging to various senses, but sup-
* Cf. the idealIstic doctrine of the essential connection of the u n i v e r ~ e With the
moment ofpcrception.
* * It IS true that In the article Cited on page 105, acquamtance IS defined as 'cl lrect
cogmtIve relatIOn to that object.' But the whole account of acquamtance, both In
thiS artJde and HI the Problems seems to me to point directly to enjoyment and not
to contemplation, and I cannot help feehng that one of the obscunhes of '\I r
Itussdl's p()';ltion h,'s III treattng as object;, what are at the same tIme meant not to
be objects.
106
posed all to co-exist in one continuous portion of space. '* It is
apparently by a sort of projection of sense-data (not, it must be
remembered, themselves objects) that we obtain the reality (or
the illusion il) of a thing. This is, incidentally, very near to
Berkeley, nearer certainly than Mr Russell's interpretation of
Berkeley. *"' But it is, from a. slightly different point of view, very
near to Kant. You have the data of sense united by logic, and
this determination of t:be manifold is for a subject, since the data
of sense are real only in acquaintance, and acquaintance means
the enjoyment by a subject. It would appear that the thmg,
which is always an object of higher order (as there are properly
no objects oflower order for Mr Russell) is a logical construction,
composed of two sorts of material, sense-data and universals,
both of which are if you hke objective, but hardly objective in the
same sense in which objects are objective. Consequently, on this
interpretation of Mr Russell's theory, one cannot say with
Meinong that objects are either existent or SUbsistent, or are
compounds of both ingredients, for the only enhties which are
purely existent are those of sense and introspection, and the only
entitles which are pUlely subsistent are universals.*"'*
It is interestmg to note, furthermore, how uncertam the
evidence for the eXistence of objects becomes when we begin by
assuming them absolutely, and on this theory. The only things
that we know by acquaintance "are neither true nor false'. sense-
data (Problems, p. lIS), universals, and the objects of inner
perception.***>I- The latter, as I intimated, are so far as known by
* 'Relations of U mversals and Particulars', Proo . .A rzst. Soo., 1911-12, pp. 6-7.
** Cf. 'The Ideas of Sight and touch make two entirely distinct and
heterogeneous'.. (Prm. of Human KlIou'[edge, XLIV) With 'If we talk of one
space we for the perceived data a collection of pieces of matter
havmg whatever quahttes the sCience of the moment may prescrIbe.' 'Cmver..al ..
and Particulars" p. 7.
39
*** It 15 true that Mr Russell speaks elsewhere as if we were directly acquamted
,",ith thmgs (Problem" p. 186) '[\le may know] by mean& of arquatntance
with the complex fact Itself, whlch may (m a large sense) be called pereeptlon,
though It 15 by no means confined to objects of the But I do not see how.
accordmg to the passage quoted earher, we can be directly acquamwd With
anythmg that IS strictly true or false of the real world.
**** Cf. Locke's Essay. Bk. 11. Ch. I, Para. 19. 'Consclousness is the perception
of what passes in a man's own mind.'
107
'The Epistemologist's Theory of Knowledge
acquaintance not objects - so far as they are objects they are
subject to all the conditions of outer perceptlOns. The universals
also are assuredly neither true nor false, masmuch as you do not
have falsehood without an existence propositlOn.
'Whiteness and brotherhood are it IS true a priori (in the sense
defined by Meinong, wlnch IS ultimately the sense of Kant as well)
but they are not knowledge, nor are they known We experience
universals, and we experience partIculars, but knowledge is always
of objects, in which both are elements. And this is as true of the
objects of mathematics, I submit, as of anythmg else. the actual
object is ahyays composed of existent and of subsistent elements,
and IS defined (practically) as an existent or as a subSIstent object
by the tendency of ltS use. Kumbers, considered as merely sub-
slstent, have no true or false combmations, for they are not
known. They are SImply erlebt (expenenced) m the contemplation of
objects to which they apply, 2 plus 2 =4 is thus nelther true nor
f:tlse; but when we add foUl' real objects together, we know (as
objects), that two of the objects ,yith two of the objects makes four
objects, and we expeneuce by acquaintance the 2 plus 2 =4. 'Ve can
of course abstract the numbers simply and determme them by a
moment of obj ectivity; but what we have then is not the number m
itsclf but an object corresponding to it. For how should ohjects
apply to objects, as numbers apply to things? Numbers are not
objects; nor, as I shall try to point out later, is number strictly a
category.
The question then from the point of view of Mr Russell's
phIlosophy, is how we proceed from acquaintance with entitles
whIch are neither real nor unreal to a knowledge of real objects
which is true or false. 'We agreed proYlsionally that physical
objects cannot be quite like our sense-data, hut may he regarded
tlS causing our sensations' (Problems, p. 30). Space, moreoever, is
,HI assumption (ilnd., pp SO, ;n). Time consists m an order of' be-
fore ulld after, but we cannot apparently be sure that the tllne-
order Wllldl events seem to ha\-e IS the same as the time-order
,dnch t l H : ' ~ : do h:n e (ibul., p. ;32). In regard to the chn,racters of
objects, secondary qualities are not characters of physical objects
108
(ibid, p. SS), but m an experience of red and blue, we may 'reason-
ably presume' (zbid, p. 34) that a difference in the object corres-
ponds to the dlfference of red and blue. 'Thus we find that, al-
though the relations of phYSIcal objects have all sorts of knowable
properties, denved from their correspondence mth the relatIOns of
sense-data, the phYSIcal objects themselves remain unknown in
thelr intrmsic nature, so far at least as can be discovered by
mcans of the senses' (ibid., p. 34). This seems very near to Funk-
(functlOnal conceptlOn). The thing, If It is any more
than a functIOn of these relations IS the merest assumption of
popular prejudice. And these difficulties of a dualrstic realism
come from the standpoint of epIstemology - of assuming that
there IS a real world outside of our knowledge and asking how we
may know it.
Another dlfficulty of this pomt of view is the problem of time
in knowledge and m realIty. Knowledge of a universal, if a
universal could be an object, would be knowledge of an objeet
which is not in time, and the knowledge consequently would be
out of time. For we attend to somethmg, and If our attention is a
temporal process the object can hardly fail to perSIst m time
But on the other hand, if existent objects are wholly in time, the
very persistence of our attention upon them will involve the
holding together of varIOUS moments of sensation by a common
meaning, and that meaning WIll not be within the time to which it
refers. I have tried to indicate one way of escape from this
dIlemma, in asserting the relativity of the SubSIstent and the
existent, and pointing out the fact that a real object always has
existent and subsistent elements. And this is substanttally the
conclusion of Mr Russell from one point of view, If as several
passages imply the object is a sort of projection composed of
ulllversals and partrculars known by acquaintance. But there lS a
further difficulty in the apprehension of these composIte entities:
'And as with space, the qualitative content - whieh is not
temporal, and apart from which the terms related would have no
character - presents an insoluble problem. How to combine this
III unity with the time which It {ms, and again hmv to establish
109
The Epistemologist's Theory oj I{nowledge
each aspect apart, are both beyond our resources. And time so
far, like space, has turned out to be appearance: (Appearance
p.S4).
Just what is the meaning of simultaneity of perceiving and
perceived? \Vhen I perceIve an object, is there any meaning in the
statement that the object is 'there' at the same time that my
perception is 'there'? If we make this assertion, and affirm that
the object is composed of sense-data which are shictly in time and
uniyersals (relations) which are not m bme, we face the question.
what time is it that the object exists in? 'It must not be supposed',
says Mr Russell, 'that the various states of different physical
objects have the same time-order as the sense-data which con-
sbtute the perceptions of those objects' (Problems, p. 33). We
thus have two time-orders which are not reducible to each other,
or the possibIlity of a continuum of various time-orders from the
Immedlfite order of experience sensa to the object itself, whlCh,
so far as it is that object, is not in time at all. And rea1ity seems to
fluctuate between these two impossible limits. Imposslble, because
on the one hand that which IS purely m time cannot be said to
exist at all. To eXist It must be a what, and to be a what is to have
(internal) ldeal relations to other whats, relatlOns which are not
m time. And on the other hand, the object of perception cannot
be consistent With itself as an object, because so far as It is that
object, it is timeless; and so far as it changes, it never was that
object, but a remoter obj ect which is capable of persisting through
the two states of itself: any object which IS wholly real is in-
dependent of time, and after any noticed change that which It
was previously is to be regarded as an appearance. The bme-order
then will vary accordmg to what we take as the object - the 'real'
SUll, for example, or the perceived sun. The two are, if you lIke,
the same sense-data in different relations, and for two objects to
exist at the same time means an alliance by the same ideal
relation. '''hat does it mean to say that my character and the ten
o'clock train, or the reputation of Herbert Spencer and his
volume which lies on my table, or my table and the electrons exist
at the same time? There is no exact meaning, and the statement
110
has meaning only so far as we refer both to a single world, in
which we vaguely feel that they are reconciled by experience; they
are held together, that is, by a feeling of their identical reference,
though that to which they refer does not exist.
This explanation (if it deserve the name) is the only escape that
I can find from the time difficulty in perception. There is no time
difficulty, because perception isn't in time; but there are several
time-orders, and the collision occurs only when we arbitrarily assume
that one is real and that there is a separate order of perception
which must somehow-correspond to it. But in a dualistic realism,
the time difficulty appears very serious indeed, and real time
seems to be as much an mference as is real space So here again I
suspect that we approach very close to criticism. For the real tIme
and real space are demanded only by the way the problem has
been set: a real (physical) world is assumed, then when we come to
ask how we know this world, it appears that all we are sure of is
certain data and forms of immediate experience, out of which the
physical world is constructed - as a consequence of which the
'objectIvity' of the external world becomes otiose or meaningless.
111
CHAPTER V
The Epistemologist's Theory of
Knowledge
continued
should now like to dIscuss some points in connection with
unreal objects, and the theories of Meinong and Russell.
_ "_ indicating the realisbc assumptions which underhe their
solutlOns, and whIch alone create the problem. This wIll serve as
an introductIOn to the larger question of denoting, meamng and
context.
There are two questlOns here involved: that of the existence of
unreal objects, and that of the truth or falsity of statements about
unreal objects. And again, in the case of unreal objects, there are
objects of hallucination, objects of imagmation, and objects
denoted, but apparently neither believed in nor assumed (the
round square). It is chiefly Wlth the last that these two authors
are engaged. With regard to all of these types of object I would
recall what I have saId of the relations of real and ideal, and
would urge the following contention: the problem is wholly
factitious, and owes its origin to the false assumption of episte-
mology - the assumptlOn that there is one world of external
reality which IS consistent and complete: an assumption which is
not only ungrounded but in some sense certainly false. RealIty
contains irreducible contradictions and irreconcilable pomts of
View. How this statement is consistent with a monistic meta-
physic I shall endeavour to show in another place.
I wu;h to touch upon the facts of visual hallucinatIOn first,
because, while the problem is essentially the same as that dealt
with by :\Icinong and Russell, it appears in a more readily
1 1 ~
apprehensible form, and because it has by some been reduced to a
different explanation from that of unreal objects in judgment,
whereas I believe the hallucination to be In virtually the same
position as the round square; both are non-existent, and both are
intended objects. Both assert their reality, though perhaps in a
difference of degree. Professor Holt says (The New Realism, p.
306) in stating the claim of an hypothetical opponent: .... not the
distorted image as such, but the distorted image which asserts
itself to be, or which the realist asserts to be the real object - .. this
is the crux for realism.' This appears to involve a petitio principii:
it is not admitted that there is a distorted image as such'. In the
case of the stick in water (which is quite distinct from the pheno-
mena of hallucination) there is if you please distorted image as
such'; if, that is, you abstract the stick under normal conditions
and choose to call that the stick. But here you have only a case of
completion of partial aspects of the same object; you say, for
example, that it is one and the same object which you intend
under two aspects, and the two aspects, when added together,
give an object which is essentially continuous with each aspect in
its meaning. And this, I think, constitutes the difference between
so-called sense illusion and hallucination: the difference of
direction of self completion of the object as urst presented. In
this sense the assertion of Professor Holt is essentially correct;
if it is interpreted as meaning that there is nothmg in the im-
meruate presentation of the object to determine its reality or
unreality; it is I believe mistaken so far as it means that there is
in an absolute sense a given object which is not internally related
to its own completion. And the degree to which this claim (as it
may be called) is realized without practical falsiucation of the urst
presentation is the degree of truth of the fust presentation. The
stick under water is continuous with the stick out of water, in a
way in which an hallucination is not; for the latter can complete
itself only backward, i.e., the experience has its relations in the
direction of neural process, not in the direction which the image
intends. It is by this capacity of indeunite self-completion, and
not by any ear-marks, that we judge the reality of a presentation;
H 118 E.E:.E.
but without this capacity, or the claIm, we could not have even a
presentation.
The reality of an hallucination is not, in the first place, judged
merely by vividness or precision. Vividness, in the ordinary sense,
is no more a condition of hallucination than is the livelmess of an
idea the condition of belief. An hallucination simply cannot be as
vivid as a normal waking impression without fulfilling all the con-
dItions of such impression. There is no question of mere bright-
ness of mental image, in the way in which a well made photograph
is brighter than a short exposure. For brightness in this sense is a
wholly objective matter; when we look at a dim photograph our
impression is as precise and clear as when we examine a very sharp
photograph. You cannot, that is, define the strength of an hallUCI-
nation by the supposed objective clearness of a presentatIOn which
is really "there', you cannot say that the hallucination has all the
characteristics of a reality except the third dimension, for example.
Such an explanation leaves us wondering why we do not have the
hallucination of reality - as well as the "illusion' - when we
contemplate a picture. And it is perhaps in point to offer this one
remark on tridimensionality. Three dimensIOns exist wherever
three dimensions are implied. Now in the contemplation of a
picture our attitude may I think be analysed into two; we con-
template the reality referred to by the lines and tones, and, we
contemplate the lines and tones themselves. A picture is analogous
to any of the common figures of optical illusion; the meaning (or
reference) of the picture corresponds to the illusory direction of
the lines, and the actual arrangements of paint to the "real'
directions. In point of fact the apparent direction of the lines is
just as objective as the real direction; the apparent direction is
the "meaning' of the figure. So the tridimensionality ofthe picture
is just as real as the onedimensionality of the surface; so far as it is
a picture, so far as it refers to three dimensions, it has three
dimensions. An hallucination, also, has three dimensions for the
point of view of the hallucinated is the only point of VIew; whereas
in the case of a picture there is another point of view which is
recognized at the same time. An hallucination is therefore wholly
114
unlike a picture, in that there is one point of view from which it is
real, and another from which it does not exist at all; though from
the point of view of an outsider it may be what I have previously
denominated an intended half-object; i.e., we intend something
which from our point of view is wholly inexistent. In order to
acknowledge the existence of hallucinations we have partially to
concede their truth. *
No comparison with normal experience, according to the
COIlsiderations above, can give an account of the plausibility of an
hallucination, for so far as it exists it has all the features of the
real world, and it exists so far as it is believed in. The principle
upon which I insist is of course the unity and continuity of
feeling and objectivity, the fact that, as dwelt upon in the first
chapter, the two are only diserirninated aspects in the whole of
experience. Take, for instance, a child frightened by a bogey.
The child 'thinks it sees' a bear. The meaning of this phrase is by
no means self-evident, for we have, I belieye, no criterion for
saying that the child does or does not see n bear. Such all illusion
may he much more, or rnuch less, than a cinematograph bear;
Pierre Janet gives examples, from among his hystericals, of the
sensation of touch and weight as welL But in a commonplace
hallucination (cf. William James in his cabin) the moment of
perception is usually I believe very slight indeed, though - and
this is an important point - we can never say that it is altogether
* This paragraph is ouly the detailed examination of a point which faHs under
the general doctrine here stated: 'Error is without any question a dangerous sub-
ject, and the chief difficulty is as follows: We cannot, on the one hand, accept
anything between non-existence and reality, while, on the other hand. error
obstinately refuses to hc ('ither. It persistently attempt;; to maintain a third
position, which appears nowhcre to exist, and yet somehow is occupied. In false
appearance there is something attributed to the real which does not belong to it.
But if the appearance is not real, then it is not false appearance because it is
nothing. On the other hand, if it is false, it must therefore be true reality, for it is
something- which is. And this dilemma at fir.t sight seems insoluble. Or, to put it
otherwis;; an appearancc, which is, must fall somewher". But error. becanse it is
false, cannot belong to the Absolute; and again, it (:nnflot appertain to the finite
subject, because that with all its contents cannot fall outside the Absolute; at
least, if it did, it would be nothing. And so error has no home. it has no place in
existence; and yet, for all that. it And for this reason it has occasioned much
doubt and difficulty.' Appearance, pp.
115
absent. In the case of the frightened child, I am not prepared to
support the James-Lange theory, but I do not see any priOrity of
lmage over emotion, or vice versa. There is, if you like, a tendency
fOf emotion to objectify itself," but the implicatiOn IS surely
mutual, for feehng and image react upon one another mextricably,
and the two aspects are so closely related, that you cannot say
that the relation is casual.
It is therefore not altogether true or altogether false to say that
the child sees a bear. For to take one group of relations of the
word 'bear" and say that this group and no other shall constItute
the meaning, is not only unwarranted but impossible. The child
does not know just what it means when it says 'bear" nor do we
know what it means; it does not know just what it has perceived
when it has been frightened by a 'bear" nor do we know what
it has perceived. For as the dlfference between real bear and
illusory bear is a difference of fullness of relations, and is not the
sort of dlfference which subsists between two classes of objects,
so the one word must cover both reality and error. The only case
in whlch it is possible in any sense to say that a perception is
'mistaken' is when there is actually before us an object closely
enough resembling the object of the erroneous perception to
justify our saying that it was this object which we perceived and
from which we made false inferences, so that the degree of error
which we recognize is in inverse ratio to the degree of similarity
between the first and the second perception. The error is thus
error because we are able in practIce to assume that it was the
true object that we perceived the whole time. In practice, that is
to say, you can credit the possibilIty of a false inference from a
truly apprehended premlSS; but in theory you cannot say that the
premiss is truly apprehended in one case and not in the other, for
you have no right to say that it is the same premiss The premiss
(here the perception from which we infer) is only tha.t premiss with
reference to what follows, and in this sense, every inference is a
true inference. For in metaphysics there is no of
inferences, but there is a starting-point which expands itself and
* Cf. LlPPS, Jrom Fuhlen. Wo lien, und Denken, p. 70.
116
can neither be arrested nor analysed, for the process is not one
simply of addition, but of inner development, so that the startmg-
point itself is altered, and you cannot say absolutely what the
startmg-point was. "Vhen we take these facts into conslderation,
we find that it IS only relatively that we can declare an erroneous
object to have been mferred from a true perceptlOn. The real
object was 'there" and in a practical sense it was that to v.hich
the perception referred, but the solubon, m whIch we account for
a true and a false perception by summmg them up under an
identical reference, is essentially a practical solutlOn, inasmuch
as it involves an interpretation of a pomt of View which we do not
accept, that of the error, and an mterpretation is essentially
un venfia ble.
The error IS an error then, because we compare it to a cognate
reality. It differs from hallucination in that m the latter case there
is no cognate reality. The difference is of course of degree only,
for we do compare the dIfferences of an identity with respect to
hallucination; the room as it really is versus the room plus the
spectre, und the fact that it IS the same room glVes us 'warrallt for
affirming error. We only say that an object is unreal WIth respect
to something else which we declare to have been affirmed at the
same hme and which contmues to be real, while the other does
not. Now an hallucination has a greater degree of substantiality
than an error, because of its greater independence; there is,
strictly speaking, nothing to contrast it WIth except its own
unreality. An hallucination, therefore, is not a 'mistake" for it is
not attached to the real world in the direction of objectivlty, it
cannot be interpreted as referring to any object which is actually
'there'. It is attached to the real world, but its real relations are
in the direction of physiological foundatIOn, and this mvolves a
much more radical change of point of VIew than mere error.
We haye seen that the hallucination does not differ from the
real object by defect of ilny specific qualities (weight, solidity,
internality, etc.) for such a question belongs wholly to another
dimension. It does not differ by contrast with some other (real)
object which we are said (really) to intend. Reality, we is not
117
The Epistemologist's Theory of Kno"wledge
to be defined by anything m the immediate content." There is a
common form of reconcihation, however, which possesses a hIgh
degree of persuasIveness, and which does indeed explain unreal
objects of perception in a limIted way. The error, the hallucma-
tion, and the reahty, will all be equally real in themselves, and
perhaps ultimately harmonious; but we are in practice concerned
only with a very restrlcted field of reality, a field no more real from
the absolute pomt of view than any of the fragments which we
exclude from It. \'Ve assume a complex a-b-c-d, and we exclude
x-B fragments of a different alphabet, because we prefer the
alphabet of which we have the more letters. The so-called
hallucinatIOn is real and true when properly understood; when
stating an error we really meant a truth. It is only because we have
[lrbltrarily separated one portion of reality from the rest, a
separation necessary for experience from finite centres, that we
are obliged to relegate the rest to unreality. The world as we are
acquainted with it from this limited point of VIew is an artificial
construction, and, our point of view not being large enough to
grasp the whole, we conSIder the rest SImply as the debrIs of our
own slight structure. This IS perhaps a doctrme of cerbun
idealisms, and It is, so far as I understand, the doctrine of Pro-
fessor Halt, who says (op. cit., p. 357) 'The ... content (i.e , an
image) simply IS, and IS 1Il itself neither true nor false.' The
ldealist asserts, 'We have at first A, which possesses the qualities
c and b, inconsistent adjectives which colhde; and we go on to
produce harmony by making a distinction within thIS subject.
That was not really mere A, but either a complex WIthin A, or
(rather here) a wider whole in which A IS included. The real
subject is A +D, and this subject contains the contradiction
made harmless by diVision, since A is c and D is b.' (A.ppearance,
p.170).
These two statements seem to me substantially the same. One
asserts that the content simply is; the other that the transmuted
content is the same content as the first. Both assert, I believe, 111
* See Remains, I. p. 188, '[T]here is no way of testmo- the truth or
falsehood of an e''lwrH:nce except by going beyond It ... ' b
118
The Epistemologist' 8 Theory qf Knowledge
the case of hnllnclDnbon, that there is a real object present whIch
is interpretrd In two chrrerent true or false But we tun c seen
that there IS no choice but whether the object be reR1 or non-
eXIstent. If the real subject is not A but .A +D, yet on tbf' other
hand the s;JbJect to whIch both c and b referred IS .1 and
(for an idealIst at least) the qualIty "hich refers to a dd1erent
subject is a dd1"erent quality; while for Professor Halt there IS ;;1
illusory expenence a real contradictwn, and vet (The XC'L'
Realism, p ;}66) , by realIty we seem TO mean the tlhn.!r most
! emote from contr "dIction'
No account of erI or m ter m5 of 'dI5soJutlOn' can ult;l[lateh'
satisfy, though lts only ,JustlficntlOn IS Its ultlmacy (.ippcrll{JIl(,{!,
pp. 170-1) Such rtn account IS Ideahstll', Sll't:e It,
cntenon is coherence, and ultImate coherence IS <0
thnt no purdy 'ur:re,ll' objects nre to be left oyer, n<; ):1 ;, rf'all,;t]C'
1>"orld: but it )" compelled to make as"uJllption:; of eO":f'-
spondence. "Let us SllPPO<;P the rpahty to be X(n i; r d r/ {{ .. )
and that wc are nhJe (1!lly to get pnrtlill vle\\,s oftlll'" ,'ea!!,y '10 Blit
tn It onh' by a euphcIllI<;1l1 that .such n partwl \1('\\
IS a view of that ollJect. Ulther than n ('o'Hplete \ ,e\\ of fI thtj'erent
object, and the sdf-completIOn of the Ylew lmoh'?" the affi! :11:1-
tion of another 1<':1 lIty to \\ hIch the reality :1ppreh mled Lui, to
conform. You 111fty say that the partial Vie," or the hulluC'!;wtIOll
llllplies Its own self-contradiction and transeendcnc(' But!!l the
'transcendence' of enor, I ms)st, the error, flS t) wal ubjcd, not
got rid of. An object IS not transcended, thou9:h n POITlt of
new is, and It is only :cs we the halluCI'1atioll not .IS an
object, but as an elemem In 11 point of view, that it can be sa;d to
be 'transcended" or "dissolved'. Sllt'jl tllf'Ol',v
that here outl.ned by :\ll' Bradley Ol by Bolt app,'ars
llnsatisf'actOl:' m that the is Hll'relv bltl'k :cnd
not done awa;: ,11th \Yllitt \\c thought \\:\5 tile obJect \\,l" not Uli'
object. But we h:1\e seen that an b an object f,lt I:
thought to Le so TilE' alteratIOn from erl or to truth 1<; !lOt a l'h.u.r.,e
in the object, but a in the whole "ltuahon. ;ll'fi thr object.
so far as it is an object, must be "dnntted to pcrs;"t as a real vbjcd
119
The Epistemologist's Theory Dj Knowledge
in history. The illusIOn which I have lived through is no more un-
real than IS JullUS Caesar unreal because he is dead. If the world
IS as essentially connected as ldealists would often have us think,
the unreal object must stIll persist and influence reality. *
The situation in regard to hallucinations and in regard to
erroneous judgments is not essentially different. The one asserts
the existence of an unreal object, and the other the subsistence
of an unreal objective; and the line between object and objective,
and between existence and subsistence, cannot as we have seen
be sharply drawn. Something is asserted to be, which is not;
though in order to assert the being of an object we must in some
way perceive It. 'The problem of error cannot be solved by an
enlarged scheme of relations .... For there is a positive sense and
a specific character which marks each appearance, and this will
still fall outside' (Appearance, p. We can thus approach to
no solution so long as we regard the world as made up of objects.
We must conclude then that the difference between hallucination
and reality is not the difference between an unreal object and a
real one. All objects are real, and the unreality is not of them qua
objects, but because of certain other relations into which (in their
reality otherwise than as objects) they fail to enter. An hallucina-
tion, we are constantly tempted to forget, IS not an object, but a
sphere of reality; its existence is internal as well as external. The
contradictions which we have to reconcile are not two objects, for
objects in themselves cannot contradict each other (this is in
agreement, I believe, with Mr Holt) but two points of view,
although I should maintain (as against Mr Holt) that the object
is inseparable from the point of view. ** The hallucination is a
whole 'world of feeling, and the object is simply that world so far
as objectified, You cannot, therefore, compare the two objects
* Cf . Joachlm, Nature of Truth, pp. 144-5: 'For precisely that feature in error,
which at the time robs It of its stmg for the erring person (VIZ hiS untroubled con-
m the truth of judgement), constitutes the dlstmctive character of error
and power for mischIef And thiS feature IS never annulled and never converted
mto an element ofthe full!.'r knowledge. The trIUmphant development of astronomy
has neither annulled nor absorbed the pers!.'clltion of Galileo '
** Though two points of vIew may mtend the same object. See later.
120
directly, but only through the media ofthe two points of view of
error and truth (though the two viewpoints are m themselves as
objective as you please). We are unable to say, however, that one
point of view is right and the other wrong, for we thus Imply an
element of identity, or of identical reference; the assertion of one
point of view against another must be made from a trurd point of
view, which somehow contains the first and second. And yet It
must be noticed (for I see no way to avoid this hair-splitting) that
it is only from the third pomt of view that the first two are
therein contained. For as soon as we have realized that we have
reached a third point of view we are already at a fourth, m
which the first and second reassert themselves once more. So
that it is only so long as we can support a particular point of'
view (and this involves not recognizing it as such) that we can
beheve that the contradiction between truth and error is super-
seded. To this matter I shall recur later. The chIef result that
I would emphasize here is that an hallucinatlOn mvolves much
more than the assertIon of' contradictory objects; it involves
a change in the subject as well. The I who saw the ghost is not the
I who had the attack of indigestion. In a change of viewpoint,
there IS some sense at least a total change, and I shall ask in
another place just what sort of ldentIty persIsts.
\Vith imagmary objects we come to a class which is frequently,
under the name of assumptions, distingmshed sharply from objects
of belief, both true and erroneous. I cannot feel that thIs dis-
tinction is needed. On the basis of the previous discussion, it
should appear that any object is real in so far as it is attended to,
and that when we assert an error or hallucination, we attend not
to the object itself but to the experience. When I think of the
golden mountain, I think of something which is to that extent
real, i.e., what we call its unreality will appear from subsequent
relations and not from the immediate presentations. There is,
upon this view, nothing which we may call mere presentation.
'When we speak of presentation, (see my third chapter) we refer
to something which was never actually presented, the "content";
what is presented is really the object, and this is not presented as
121
The Epistemologist's Theory of I( nowledge
a presentation, but as real. Undoubtedly it will be objected that
we do think of objects as unreal. To this point I shall recur later,
here I shall only recall what was said about the object of hal-
lucination, In referring to a past hallucination the dIrect object is
an experience, the indirect object the hallucinatory object. As
the imaginary object does not differ essentially from this indirect
object, I shall pass to It through a consideration of the object of a
past hallucination.
I said that the direct object is an erroneous experience. But
thIs is a real object only to a shght extent, and at the first analysis
appears to be an intended object. For it splits into two parts, like
other psychological objects. the physiological part and the real
part. On the one hand we intend what 'really went on', iflt IS cer-
tain 'ideas' In the 'mind' then these ideas (Chapter II) dissolve into
the physlOlogical process; and nothing 'went on' whIch cannot be
described by the neurologist. On the other hand we intend the
object intended by the patient, and this is on our part a true case
of assumption as far as it is successful. vVhen we intend an
intentIon, that IS to say, we intend something which IS real in our
world in combination with something which is not real in our
world. But the experience as a whole is real in our world; other
men's experiences are reahties with which we come into contact,
and which are continually influencing us. Here then, we have
cases In which an assumption forms part of a reality: in whIch an
assumption is real not simply as a real assumption (i.e., the fact
that we made the as:sumption is true), but we have to make the
assumption in order to apprehend an object which we know to be
real. In cases like this we seem to confront a feature of the
assumption neglected by Meinong. For the object of the halluci-
nation is not assumed in the way in which objects which we do not
know to exist are assumed; the object here is known not to exist.
We cannot intend the intention of an object without intendmg
the object itself; this is what I have caned the indirect object
when the direct object is an experience. And where the experience
is an assumption and not an hallucmation the matter is sbll
further complicated. Another man 'assumes' the golden mountain;
1 ~ ~
I intend this experience as an object. I ought theoretically to be
able to assume the assumption WIthout comnutting myself to any
attitude toward the golden mountam on my own account; but I
find that I am obliged to make an indlrect object ofthe mountain,
mtend it not only through the intentIOn of the assumptIOn, but
dIrectly. This immediacy holds true even If the object IS somethmg
of which I know nothing, and the name of which has no meaning
for me. I stIll intend the same object. Here again, in older to
apprehend a reahty (someone's making an assumption) I am
forced to make an assumption myself Accordmg to the account
which I have given of psychology, m fact, we make assumptIOns
in the apprehension of a large number of real objects
I mfer from these facts that assumption IS not a simple act, but
that the term may be made to cover every act from acceptance to
rejection, and that the apprehenslOll of an object known to be
imagmary does not differ essentially from the apprehensIOn of any
other object, unless we have hocus-pocussed an external reality to
which ideas are to 'conform'. Can we, in reading a novel, SImply
assume the characters and the situations? On the contrary, I seem
to find that we either accept them as real,(withhallucmationas the
hmitmg case) or consider them as meanings, as a critIclsm of
reahty from the author's point of'VIew. Actually, I think that if
we dId not vacillate between these two extremes (one of which
alone would gtve the 'photographic' novel and the other the arid
'piece a these') a novel would mean very little to us. The charac-
ters and the situations are all 'Imagmary', but is there anyone act
which so apprehends them, cut off and 'floating'? In order to be
imaginary, they must be contrasted with something which 18 real.
There must, furthermore, be specific points of resemblance and
difference: for the type of reality with which the imaginary object
is contrasted must be a type to which the latter pretends to
belong Now so far as merely the imaginary object intends such a
reality and falls short, it is not an object of any kind real or
imaginary, but falls under what I have said predously of' 'mere
idea'. If the character in fiction is an imaginary ohject, it must b"
by virtue of something more than its being Imaginary, Lt). merely
1 ~ 3
intending to be a reality which it is not. It must be, as I said,
contrasted with tlus realIty; to be contrasted It must be more
than a pure reference; it must have in fact another aspect in
which it has a reality of its own distinct from its reference. The
fiction IS thus more than a fiction: it is a real fiction.
We thus analyse the intended object of fiction into Its reference
and its reality. The reality in its turn is not a simple object but an
intended object, for it includes everything from the antecedents
ofthe character in the author's mind, to the symbols which express
the character on paper. We may mean the character as a presen-
tation to the author's mind, but a figure in fiction may and often
does have an existence for us distinct from what is merely our
interpretation of what the author 'had in mind'. Frequently we
feel more confidence in our own interpretation of the character
than in any account of the genesis and meaning which the author
may gIVe himself. This is not always mere accident; no really
'vital' character in fiction is altogether a conscious construction
of the author. On the contrary, It may be a sort of parasitic
growth upon the author's personality, developing by internal
necessity as much as by external addition. So that we come to feel
that the point of view from which the author criticizes is not
wholly internal to the point of view from which he created the
character. Of course this difference should not be insisted upon,
for the author may shift from a creative to a critical point of view
and back at any moment. * Now a character which is 'lived through',
which is real to us not merely by suggesting 'that sort of person'
but by its independent cogency, is to the extent of its success real.
Treating it as imaginary involves a change of viewpoint. Besides
this reality, the character has other relations which are inconsis-
tent with reality. It belongs in other contexts, has relations which
are incompatible with its reality. Its unreality, therefore, is not
in itself, but in relations extending far beyond itself; its reality is
its reference, and its unreality as that to which it refers is its
* The combination of criticism and creation 15 found perhaps in such wrIters as
Moli/-re and Stendhah whil&t the characters of Balzac and Dostoevsky are much
more nearly lived through simply.
reality as an imaginary' object. And, on the other hand, as an
imaginary object it is just as real as anything; it is as a real object
that it is imaginary.
An imaginary object has thus two main aspects: its intention
to be real and its reality as an intention. As the former it is
limited by its paucity of relations, as the latter it eXIsts by vIrtue
of its relations. There is, strictly speaking, no imaginary objective:
we attend to a complex which comprehends two points of view -
a real object with few relations and an mtended object which
consists of its relations. When we speak of the character as a
fiction we mean a relation between an object real from one point
of VIeW and certain entities (ultimately physIcal) which are real
from another point of view. The imaginary object, it will follow,
is a highly complex ideal construction. It exists as such only from
a third point of view which includes the two just mentioned; but
these two also are in the closest dependence upon one another.
For the real relations of the intended object (the mental and
physical condltions which attended the genesIs and realization
of that character of fiction) would not be such as they are without
the intention to realize a fiction.
At this point I must introduce another complication. The
author himself may attend to his fiction not merely as an intended
realIty (i.e. he may not be and in reality I suppose never is
conscious of his fiction from the point of view from which it is real).
He may be conscious of the continual l'a-et-vient of ideas in the
process of realization; the intended realIty shifts and changes as
he deserts one outcome for another; and he may be conscious
furthermore of the effort to express felt emotions and abstract
ideas by 'clothing them in flesh and blood'. So that I do not believe
that the author in process of composition is ever, in practice,
occupied with a single point of view; or that in practice any
moment ever exists when one point of view is in exclusive posses-
sion. But the 'imaginary object' has all these relations and in fact
is these relations.
Finally, I do not see any possibility of saying that the imaginary
object either subsists or exists. For when we think of the character
125
in fiction, we go on to think of some aspect in the complex. Becky
Sharp exists in the time-order of Vanity Fair, but this time-order
does not itself exist. Becky eXIsts as an event in the life of
Thackeray, and as an event in the life of every reader m the same
way that every real person exists as an event in the lIfe of every
other real person with whom he comes in contact. But the object
denoted by the word Becky does not exist, for it is simply the
identical reference of several pomts of view.
If the evidence wmch I have offered has any relevance, it should
appear that assumption or entertainment is by no means a simple
act like acceptance or rejection. The object is not a simple object.
There is a simple object which is real in the same way m which an
hallucination is real, but this object is only part of the object of
the assumptlOn. The chief advantage which this theory pretends
to offer over Meinong's is its greater consistency WIth Bradley's
'views on floatmg ideas. The Annahme, as I understand It, IS such
a floating idea. If reality is all of a piece, as the epIstemologist
believes, then the Imagmary must be cut off and floating "like
Mahomet's coffin' between earth and sky. In the theory whIch I
outline, the distinction of objechve and subjective, external
realIty and mental, is unnecessary. vVhatever is gathered together
in consciousness equally is, and is real or unreal only m relatIOn.
A third class of objects is that of unreal objects. These differ
from the two foregoing in that they are neither belIeved m nor
partially believed in, but are intended objects of 'denoting
phrases which denote nothing'. In the other two classes there
always is an object, although in the case of assumphons the
object* dissolves into entihes which are not themselves objects
but do not fail to exist. vV' e might say that in an assumptIOn the
object is real, but is not an ob.Ject, and that in the intentIOn of an
unreal object the object is an object but is not real. The question
is, in the words ofMr Uussell, whether 'any grammatically correct
denoting phrase stands for an object'. ('On denoting', Mind, 1905,
p. 1,82).
~ Makmg a l ~ h a r p distinctIon b .. t.. .. en the object of the assumption and the
obJect ofthe be,lI'fwhlch IS Olie ofthe pomts of VIew entering mto the assumption.
H!6
The difficulty with Meinong's view, according to Mr Russell, is
that such an object may mfrmge the law of contradiction. The
present King of France wIll both exist and not exist, the round
square Will be round and not round. The fallacy of this criticism
lies, I believe, in treating eXIstence as being for metaphysics as
well as for formal logIc, a simple predicate. >\< To say that the present
King of France both exists and not exists IS no more false than to
say that my typewriter both exists and not exists inasmuch as it
now exists for me who am looking at it, and not for Mr Russell who
is looking at something else. In other words, in asserting existence
of any object, we denote existence but do not mean It; and yet,
we do mean to denote, and this meaning to denote is an essential
part of the denoting.
The difficulty IS greatly enhanced by the fact that in the use of
any phrase we cannot always be sure to what extent we are
meaning the denotation or meaning the meanmg, and how far we
are denotmg the denotation or denotmg the meamng. For practi-
cal purposes the phrase 'the present Kmg of France' denotes a
real object hut has no meaning; but this mU not do for us,
because any denoting phrase which can be used m a proposItIon
means to have meaning, and is therefore not meaningless, and
also a phrase cannot denote without likewise having meaning.
While we may say, according to Mr Russell, that
(1) 'The present King of France' is a denotmg phrase,
we may not say
( ~ ) The present King of France is bald.
It is possible, however, to deny the admissibility of the first ofthe
two proposItions, for it implies the partial maintenance of two
points of view. I do not see how we can refer to the meaning of a
phrase 'without referring also to its denotation.
Proposition (1) is about 'the present King', but would not be a
proposition unless we assumed at one moment the existence ofthe
present King. For if we lmow that 'the present Kmg' denotes
* From the point of View taken in thIS paper, of course, any bJIuplc Judgment of
existence WIll alwaY5 be partially false. But tillS is not preclbdy the argument IN"d
here.
1 ~ 7
nothing, then it isn't denoting; and if we say that it means to
denote, then we have transported ourselves to a point of view
internal to the meaning, and actually mention the present King
of France. In logic, perhaps, but not in metaphysic, a denoting
phrase may denote nothing. Somehow, obscurely, the object
denoted is acknowledged existence. It is non-existent according
to the practical standards which recognize no degrees between
existence and non-existence; but for metaphysics, it cannot be
demed practical reality without being admitted to some more
attenuated but (if you like) equally real reality.
And notice that the contrast is not at all that between the solid
reahty and the idea. This is to confuse denotation with meaning.
'Chimeras do not exist.'*41 This proposition does not say: Ideal
chimeras do not exist. The chimeras to which existence is denied
are not the chimeras "in my head' but the real chimeras. But
surely, it will be objected, we do not say: Real chimeras are
unreal! Yet that is in my opinion, just what, from the point of
view of metaphysics, we do say, and any other statement would
be meaningless. The explanation so far as there is one, is simply
this. The phrase, 'real chimeras' can be taken in two ways:
(1) the chimeras which are actually experienced; ( ~ ) chimeras
which are 'real'. The word 'real' has in (1) meaning, and in ( ~ )
denotation. On the other hand in order to have meaning in (1),
it must denote something which in experience is actually judged
to be real in sense ( ~ ) , and in order to have denotatIon in ( ~ ) it
must have meaning in actual experience. By substituting alter-
nately we get
Chimeras such as are experienced, are not real.
Real chimeras (Le., such as would satisfy all the conditions of
reality) are not experienced - not met with in experience.
Here by denying the predication of denotation of meaning and
vice versa we seem to escape contradiction. But the evasion is only
momentary. For the phrase 'chimeras such as are experienced'
denotes real chimeras, and the phrase "real chimeras' means
Principles of Logic, p. 115.
US
chimeras which are actually experienced. Can we say that the
non-existent chimeras are real chimeras in denotation and
imaginary chimeras in meaning? \-Ve have some idea of that to
which we deny existence, and the Idea, we have seen above, is so
far as it is ideal as well the reality which It intends, and we must
say simIlarly of the denoting phrase, that so far as it denotes it
denotes a real object.
What has been said of the status ofideas, in a previous chapter,
will thus apply to a certain extent to denoting phrases. In each
there is the moment of objectivity, so that it lmplies its own
fulfilment in reality, as an object of practical expenence Idea and
phrase both denote realities, but the realities which they denote
are so far as idea or phrase denotes, identical with the idea or the
phrase. It is a mistake, I thmk, to treat the word as something
which barely points to the object, a sign-post which you leave
behind on the road. The word 'chimera' or the ldea 'chimera' is
the beginning of the realIty chimera and is absolutely contmuous
WIth It, and the 'present King of France' is already partially real.
The phrase directs your attention to an object but the object is
an object because it is also that object, because the mere hypo-
thetical moment of objectlvity is qualified by the characters of
the phrase, which are real properties at once of the phrase and of
the object. Just as the idea refers to itself, so the denoting phrase
denotes itself. But just as an idea is not a thing, and our difficulties
arise from trymg to treat it as a thing, so a denotmg phrase is not
a thing. It is not simply that, for a mere that (which is in fact only
a theoretlCallimit) does not refer to somethmg else; reference is a
kind of activity, original or delegated. LIke an idea, a word or
phrase has existence outside of lts and a denoting
phrase in particular resembles an idea in havmg an existence
which straddles so to speak two moments of objectlvity; the one
moment being simply those marks or sounds whIch denote, and
the other the 0 bj ect denoted.
This is the only way that I can discover to get over the meta-
physical difficulties of unreal objects: to a very large extent we are
not dealing with objects at all, and it is only when we try to press
HW E.K.E.
an exact meaning that we find language forcing untenable theories
upon us The denoting phrase is not an object, and existence is a
complex notIon. What we denote when we denote the denoting
phrase is not the phrase as such, for that is an activity rather than
an object, but rather the tendency toward objectification in the
dIrection toward us; that is, the 'word', the written sign, or the
vox et praeterea nihil. But this object itself is an abstraction and
not real, for when you have stripped It of Its power, its reference,
it is no longer that object, but something quite unrelated to the
denoting. It would thus appear that in denoting the object is no
more than a moment of objectivity, and that in thinking of a
denoting phrase we mean an object which dissolves into two
sub-objects and a relatIOn. And tills analysis is a falsification, for
one object cannot, as we have said, refer to another without being
more than an object, and the sub-objects, abstracted from the
reference, disappear.
The usefulness of this account will not be at first evident but it
may go a httle way toward solvmg the difficulties raised by other
explanations. The difficulty of Meinong's theory that there are
unreal objects is, as Mr Russell points out, the fact that such
objects violate the law of contradiction; and the difficulty of Mr
Russell's theory IS the contradiction of phrases denoting which
yet denote nothing - a pure mystery. The pOSItion of Meinong
IS untenable, I think, only so long as we assume that although
objects may exist in various ways, they can exist only in one
degree. While it is true that the round square is both square and
round, it is not true to say that it is both round and not round,
although square may Imply, in other contexts, not-round. This is
to confuse two planes of reality; so far as the object exists at all it
is both square and round, but the squareness and roundness
which it has are the squareness and roundness of that degree of
reality; the object is not present upon that level of reality upon
willch square and round are contradictory, though it is none the
less, qua object, real. Objects exist for us in two ways: As we
intend an object, the intended object is so far real, and as we
experience an object, it realizes itself, and comes to require a
ISO
certain degree of fullness of relations before it considers ltself an
object. The ordinary objects (by which we set our standard of
reality for the intended objects denoted by the symbols whlCh
denote those ordinary or usual objects) are objects of the second
sort. But we are accustomed to handle and use them by symbols
which merely denote them, we forget that their reality is as much
m their meanmg as in their denotation, and we take it for granted
that they simply are. Nor IS this belief error - the matter is much
more complIcated than that! As objects, It is true that they simply
are: but unfortunately, III order to be objects, they must be much
more, they must be continuous with experience, and continuous
with it in a rich and full way. Now commonly we do not treat unreal
objects as objects simpliciter: the common-sense solutIOn IS to
treat our 'real' objects simpliCiter, and our unreal or lmaginary
objects as more immediately continuous with experIence. Yet
when we come to preciser we find ourselves reYE'rsing the procedure
for we discover that it was just this continmty "lth experience,
thIS fullness of relatIOn, which gave us what. we caU our real objects,
and just the discontinuity, the mere intention, which gave us our
unreal objects. The 'unreal' object, qua object, is jU&t. thl' bare
intention, the object-moment; whereas the 'real' ohjectis real
because it has so much to draw upon; because ifremoved It would,
we feel, leave so much more of a void in our experience And yet
this unlimited credit is not. t.he object itself, for it IS not. as sllch
objective. So we are forced t.o conclude that one object is more
real than another - more of an object - by Virtue of non-object
relatlOns.* Both real object and unreal object are, qua objects,
equally real, when, both, so to speak, are at the fovea. It IS only
when we cease to consider either simply as an object, that one
appears to be real and the other unreal.
We may say, then, that the unreal object, although it exists,
does not violate the law of contradiction. ** While it IS, hroadly
speaking, true that the present King of France both eXIsts and
* Ultimately. it must be remembered, there ar(' not even relatIons.
** And I am tempted, by the "ay, to regard as a dead leUeralaw whIch ('<tnno!
be violated. Is not tIllS law as useless as the verrnuorrn appendIX?
131
does not exist, it IS not true in the same sense; for 'exists" as we
have seen, is not a simple predicate. I suppose that it will be
objected, to this assertiOn, that any judgment of existence would
be rendered a tautology, for It could no more than declare that an
object has the sort of existence that it has. Such an objectiOn
would in my opimon hold good only if the sorts of existence were
cut off from each other like inches along a yard-stick. When we
say eXIsts, we mean a degree of existence to be determined by the
context, and when we state the subject, we do not need to know
the precise degree of reality which it is to have. In other words, a
substantive in isolation IS not yet even a substantive, for its
degree of quality is quite unknown. WhlCh states no more than
that a substantive in complete isolation does not exist, for It
would be a symbol that symbohzed nothing, and hence would not
be a symbol at all, but another reality (i.e., certain marks on
paper, etc.).
It is essential to the doctrme which I have sketched that the
symbol or sign be not arbitrarily amputated from the object
which It symbolIzes, as for practical purposes, it is lsolated (see p.
90). No symbol, I maintain, is ever a mere symbol, but is contmu-
ous with that which it symbolIzes. WIthout words, no objects.
The object, purely experienced and not denominated, is not yet an
object, because it is only a bundle of particular perceptions; in
order to be an object it must present identlty in difference through-
out a span of time. Now of course I do not pretend that there are
no objects for the higher animals, or even for the lower; the
difference IS in one aspect only of degree. But we may say that in
any knowledge prior to speech the object is not so much an
identity recognized as such as it is a sImilar way of actmg, the
Identity IS rather lived out than known. What we are here con-
cerned with is the explicit recognition of an object as such, and I
do not believe that this occurs without the beginnings of speech.
\\' e may say If we like that the dog sees the cat and knows it as a
cat, though it does not know its name, and I have no objection
to this way of speaking loosely. But when we ask in what this
knowledge consists, we can only point to a form of behaviour.
132
Our only way of showing that we are attending to an object* is to
show that it and ours elf are independent entities, and to do this
we must have names So that the point at which behaviour
changes into mental Me IS essentIally mdefinite, It IS a question
of interpretation whether in expression which IS repeated at the
approach ofthe same object (as a cat may have a peculiar way of
acting at the approach of a dog) is behaviour orlanguage J2 In either
case, I insist, it is contmuous wIth the object, m the first ease
because we have no object (except from the point of view of the
observer, which must not be confused 'nth that of the pabent under
examinatIOn), and m the second case because It IS language whIch
gives us objects rather than mere passIOns'. Or at least we have
no objects WIthout language.
I know that It WIll be objected that I am here confUSIng the
genetIc with the structural standpomt. and in reply I can only
urge, that I have found the two orgaIllcally rebted, and that I
cannot admIt that metaphysIcs may analyse and fiIllI truth III
one part of the analysIs, dlscardmg the other The object, }OU
will say, is now known as mdependent of the word, though like
enough wlthout words we might not have come to know
It is true, I reply, that when we mean nn object .nth It word we
mean the object and not tht' word, and we might mean the :'J.me
object by a different word, though I think that you quite unuE'r-
estImate the closeness With which particular words are woven into
ourreahty. But the object which we denote in thIS sense IS the ob-
ject qua object, and not the bundle of experiences which the object
means. The object qua object would not exist \\lthout thIS bundle
of experiences, but the bundle would not be a bundle unless It
were held together by the moment of objectivity whlch IS reahzed
in the name. I am very far from meaning that it is the act of naming
whlCh makes the object, for the activity does not proceed from
one side more than from another. Objects canllot arise without
names, and names never spring up without objects, ready to be
* This 1$ not to say that the phenomena of attention are not olhervable among
animals, but that such phenomena need not be In e\'ery a'peet mterprtted as tho,,'
of attention.
lSS
The Epistemologist's Theory DJ Knowledge
applied to the first objects to which they seem appropriate. Nor
do I mean that the object did not exist until it was known, but
only that it has not the character of objecbvity until it is known
as an object.
The name is not the object, certamly. vVe may say more truly
that it is a category through which one grasps the object (if any-
one has a taste for categories), but even this will not state the
case correctly, if the category is conceived as something subjective,
contrasted with the object. I should prefer to speak of the name
as the moment of denotation, it is not that which is denoted,
obviously, or merely a convenient means for denoting something
whIch exists in complete independence of the name. It denotes an
object whIch IS not itself, and yet, when we ask just what this
object IS whICh IS denoted, we have nothing to point to but the
name. V'.'e do not denote any qualities of the object, as such, we
do not, that is, denote any definition which could be given of the
object, we denote not its whatness but its thatness. And we must
not forget that even 'that' is a name, ifI ask you to what you refer,
you may simply point to the object and say 'that'; you mean, if
you like, a certain bundle of perceptions, but unless what you
mean has this name 'that' it is not an object. The simplest thing
that a thing can be is to be 'that', is to be merely object; and we
are not denoting 'that" and it is not object, until we have these
two words at our disposal. Try to think of what anything would
be if you refrained from naming it altogether, and it will dissolve
into sensations which are not objects; and it will not be that
particular object which it is, until you have found the right name
for it.
This relationship of thing and name has interesting aspects on
the other side. If wc cannot say that we have that object until1'1'e
have that name, since each name is a different way of organizing
a set of experiences, so on the other hand we have not really got
that name until we have the right object. It is evident that a name
is not. a name unless it is the name of something, that the feeling
of a meaning. if ever so faint, will just make the difference between
a name and a mere Laut-complea:. Now just as an object which we
134
cannot name is as yet only the adumbration of that obJect, so the
name of which the object is not as yet dIstInct IS only the adum-
bration of that name, we sometimes find ourselves guilty of using
very specific names when for all that we know the name is equiva.
lent merely to object'. Yet the name Implies particularity. As we
may fancy, if we like, objects wandering about waIting to be met
wIth and be named (lIke the animals in the Garden of Eden), so
we may fancy names wandering about In our heads waiting for
objects. But such IS an hypothetical1imit whIch IS never reached.
Now as Imaginary objects and imagInary spheres ofreahty are not
in our heads', any more than the real' world IS, names may be
names of real objects in imaginary spheres. The present Kmg of
France' is not the name for anything in the real' world - but m
the real world the present King of France' is not a name at all.
supposing that there were such a real world cut off from all
imaginary worlds, the present KIng of France' would be It mere
noise - in the real world.
This, however is a digression. Though we cannot say that we
have either name or object (to recur to the beginnmg of the last
paragraph) until we have the complete object for that name or the
complete name for that object, yet the pomt at which this mystic
marriage occurs is not exactly determinable. This should make a
httle clearer my observations on the child"s imaginary bear
(p. 115). The child means bear" we may say, without really
knowing what bear means; yet so far as it has reacted to the bogey
in the same way as it would to a real bear, the name bear' m the
child's mind has a real bear to back it up. The name has termi-
nated in an experience, and as even the word chimera' terminates
in an experience in so far as the word is admitted to have a
meaning, and not merely itself to be, the word has a real
object.
The discussion of real and unreal objects will proceed with
eternal fruitlessness so long as we mamtain the bellef that there
is one consistent world of the real nnd that the rest is illusory.
Nor do we advance a step farther by affirmillg that e .... erything IS
real, for this alteration merely crams all the unrealit:- into thought
135
The Epistemologist's Theory Dj Knowledge
whIch was formerly in perception, and in nowise resolves the
question. The whole difficulty, I belIeve, arises from talnng
existence as a simple concept. Whereas, I have tried to show, we
can never extricate the denotation of 'real' from its meaning.
The process of development of a real world, as we are apt to
forget in our theories, works in two directions; we have not first
a real world to which we add our imaginings, nor have we a real
world out of which we select our 'real' world, but the real and the
unreal develop side by side. If we think of the world not as ready
made - the world, that is, of meaning for us - but as constructed,
or constructing Itself, (for I am careful not to talk of the creative
activIty of mind, a phrase meaningless in metaphysics) at every
moment, and never more than an approximate constructIOn, a
constructIOn essentially practical In its nature: then the diffi-
culties of real and unreal disappear. TheOrIes of knowledge
usually assume that there is one consistent real world, in which
everything IS real and equally real, and that it is our business to
find it. They do this largely, I suppose, because common sense
does the same thing, not realizing that the denotations of real and
unreal may hold good for a practical point of view and not for a
metaphysical. VVhIle the real world of epistemology IS hard and
fast, its whatness and Its thatnes8 Inseparably gemmated, the
real world of practice is essentially vague, unprecise, swarming
with what are, from a metaphysical point of Vlew, insoluble
contradictions. We forget that what has grown up from a purely
practical attitude cannot be explained by a purely theoretical.
The real and the unreal are, from the outside point of view which
we attempt to take as epistemologists, equally real, and our
consequent troubles are due to the fact that these contrasts arose
and have their meaning, only from the internal point of view
'which we have abandoned in seeking an explanation.
\Ve can never, I mean, wholly explam the practical world from
a theoretical point of view, because this world is what it is by
reason of the practical point of VIew and the world which we try
to explain is a world spread out upon a table - simply there! The
plight into which we put ourselves is however inevitable, for the
136
theoretical point of view is the inevitable outgrowth of the practical.
\Ve arrive at objects, as I have tried to show, by meamng objects;
sensatIOns orgamze themselves around a (logical) point of atten-
tion and the world of feeling is transmogrified into a world of self
and object. \Ve thus have an object which is constituted by the
denoting, though what we denote has an existence as an object
only because it is also not an object, for qua object it is merely the
denotmg, the proj ection of shadow of the mtentIon, as real 0 bj ed
It is not object, but a whole of experiences which cluster round
the point of denotation."" Now in practice do we use the complex
meamng or only the denotation fl I do not see any final answer to
thiS question. For a theoretical account of the practical attitude
would be a descnptIOn from an outside point of view, and a
'practical' account would give merely the theory of our practice .
\. theory of practice or a practice of theory would be equally
beside the mark: the first inevitably would reduce everything to
meanmg and the second would reduce everythmg to denotmg So
far as objects are objects, we always intend to denote them, of
course, but III practice, they are only objects partially or
occaslOnally, and we cannot decide to what extent.
Practice, and tillS is the difficulty (though all our difficulties
I1re perhaps one in different forms) is shot through with theory,
and theory with practice. The hypothetical transition from
sensation to subject-object, which I have attempted to outline,
is a speculatIve activity. The assumption of a real world is a
theory; nothing, in fact, is merely found. And the distinction
between theory and practice can nowhere be positively drawn;
whether we are setting up an assumption 'for our own ends' or
purely from the love of speculation, is everywhere matter for a
relative distinction. In general we may say, nevertheless, that the
sharper and more complete the lines, the more theoretical the
account; and in thIS way, when we attempt to define practice we
get a theory, and a theory may incorporate itself into our practice.
Hence our theory will be found full of practical motives and
* Not always, or even usualJy, a 'bundle of sen:;ations'. All the assocIations and
ideal relations are here meant.
137
practical consequences, and our practice will be found to be
largely based upon speculation.
To return, after this long digression, to our objects, I conclude
that we can never give an exact description or explanation of the
relations ofthe real and the unreal. For we have no difficulty with
the matter at all until we begin to think (yet this thinking was
forced upon us originally by the practical difficulties of illusion).
Practically, as I said before, we use 'real' in two senses, and thus
skip, within the practical, between practical and theoretical
points of view. 'Chimeras do not exist.' A theoretical account of
this might be, I said, 'real chimeras are not real.' This might be
the theoretical account of what we really say, or the theory which
we practise, or the theoretical account of the theory that we
practise. Or we might give either of the alternatives which I
offered earlier. But in every judgment there arises the con-
trast between reality and unreality. * A contrast which from a
point of view (outside the sphere of interest of that judgment) is
unjustified in the form in which it presents itself, and always
means something different. But in the end these accounts are
simply mterpretations which have greater or less utility. 'ChImeras
do not exist.' If we understand this it needs no explanation, if not
we can find none. 'The King of France is bald.' This is true or
false or meaningless according to its context and bearing. That
the theory needs working out in great detail I cannot see. It
would be tying knots in the east wind. We have secured, I think,
a general principle, and have seen why it neither demands nor
admits complete elaboration.
What I have been saying may seem to have no direct bearing
upon the metaphysics ofMr Bradley, but the whole position taken
here throughout the discussion of the epistemological attitude
has been in support of this metaphysic. For from this point of
view the problem of knowledge does not exist; the distinction
between mner and outer, which makes the epistemologist's
capital, cannot stand. \iVe have seen that the word 'idea' does not
* SO' that we may not too perversely say that judgment IS the predication of an
ideal content of Unreality.
138
refer to something ("thing') which intervenes between the object
and the perclpient, but is a stage in the process of realization of a
world. The object so far as there is an object IS presented to the
knower Without mediation of category or other psychological
apparatus. Knowledge, that is to say. cannot be defined in terms
of anything else, and so far as there is any problem, it has its
origin in the fact that knowmg is not simply knowmg, but has
another aspect. And why this is, I have to some extent attempted
to show. We tend to think of objects - of things - as being
objects under any and every condition: if they are not objects
when they are not known, then the only alternative, we think, is
that they disappear altogether. But we have seen that even within
experience objects could not be objects unless they were much
more; and their objectiVIty, their bemg denoted, is only a moment
of their reality; a moment wruch we say metaphorically is sup-
ported by an act of the will, although I should never admit that
the situation was due to the subject side any more than to the
object SIde, or that the notIOn of activity was ultnnately pOSSIble
in any sense.
The real world, If'the real world means the world of real objects,
is thus something with ,,-hich we are III immediate contact, and
mdeed quite real - as real as you like - though varymg and
unprecise Its 'relation' to the knower is however not here in
questIOn, inasmuch as knowledge is not a relation. The real world
is not inside or outSIde; it is not presented in consciousness or to
consciousness as a particular grouping of entities, for as presented
it is not in or to consciousness at all: it simply is. There is no
meaning, I think, in saying that in knowing consciousness is either
active or passive, or that there IS an 'awareness' beyond the mere
psycho-physiological phenomena of attention; or that conscious-
ness 'is' its object or is different from its object. But knowmg, we
have found, is only part of a larger process of expenence, and the
point at which we hase real knowing is never precisely deter-
minable. There is always, m our experience, a real world 'external'
in a restricted sense, for there is always. in any eXistence worthy
of us, a real object of attention, and so far as there is, the object
139
is directly known but not directly experienced, for the object, to
be an object, is always meant to be something more than its
abstracted qualities, and to be directly known cannot be directly
experienced. -!< But the object as object cannot be self-supporting.
Its objectivIty is merely externalIty, and nothing in reality can be
merely external, but must possess being 'for' itself. Yet to mean
it as an object means to mean it as more than an object, as some-
thing ultimately real. And in this way every object leads us far
beyond itself to an ultimate reality: this is the justificatIOn for
our metaphysics.
The objects which are apprehended by every finite centre are
as apprehended real. The question arises, how the worlds of these
various centres may be said to form one world, inasmuch as there
is no 'objective' criterion for reality in the sense of an external
solid world to which our individual presentations should conform.
The real world, I have insisted, consists in the common meaning
and 'Identical reference' of various finite centres. This leads to a
question, cardinal in the philosophy of Mr Bradley, the question
offimte centres and solipSIsm
* 'Sugar is obviously not mere whIteness, mere hardness, and mere sweetness;
for Its reahty e ~ somehow III Its unity. But If, on the other hand, we mqUlre what
there can be III the thmg beSide Its several quahtles, we are baffled once more. We
can discover no real umty e,,.jstmg outside these qualities, 01', agalll, eXlstmg within
them.' Appearance, p. 16.
140
CHAPTER VI
Solipsism
I
t should be evident why the conclusions already reached
demand an examination of Solipsism, but I will briefly recount
them We have seen that there is no other object than that
wluch appears, and its appearance as an object gives it, in an
absolute sense, all that objectively it could possibly mean. If you
are willing to make the abstraction of a world appearing to one
fimte centre alone, then we may say that nothing m this world is
false or erroneous, but is what It is and as it is. And outside of the
objectivity of objects appearing to finite centres, there is no
objectlVlty at all, for we have found that objectivity and thmg-
hood are aspects under which reality appears; true but partial
aspects, and that the reality of a thing' (we are here painfully
hampered by language) is m no wise limited to its thinghood. But
beyond the objective worlds of a number of finite centres, each
having its own objects, there is no objective world. Thus we con-
front the question: how do we yoke our divers worlds to draw
together? how can we issue from the cIrcle described about each
point of view? and since I can know no point of view but my own,
how can I know that there are other points of view, or admitting
their existence, how can I take any account of them?*
SolipsIsm has been one of the dramatic properties of most
philosophical entertainers. Yet we cannot discard it without
recogmzing that it rests upon a truth. [T]hough my experience is
not the whole world, yet that world appears in my experience, and,
so far as it exists there, it is my state of mind .... And so, in the
'" The controversy between Brunebere and France IS rather mstructive, showmg
a muddlmg of the quesbon by two men who are not phIlosophers, but have each
hIS own personal solubon in practIce.
141
Solipsism
end, to know the Universe, we must fall back upon our personal
experience and sensation'. 43 This doctrine I should like to develop
in something of detail, with regard to real objects. And in doing
this I must summon in the theory of points of view upon which
I have relied before. Obviously, by the conclusions at which
; I have arrived, it is true to say that the real world is real be-
I cause and in so far as it appears to a finite centre, and yet it has
in each appearance to mean to be more - to be. real, that is,
only so far as it is not an appearance to a finite centre. From
a point of Vle,:" completely detached, reality would contain no-
thing but finite centres and their several presenta;tions; but
from the point of view of each centre, there is an objective world
upon which several points of view are trained, and to which they
all refer. And it is just the confusion of these two truths which
gives the stuffed solipsism of the philosophers. I have tried to
show that there can be no truth or error WIthout a presentation
and discrimination of two points of view; that the external world
is a construction by the selection and combination of various
presentations to various viewpoints: and that the selection which
makes reality is in turn made possible by the belief in realIty:
unless we assumed the existence of a world of truth we could not
explain the genesis of error, and unless we had presentations of
error as well as of truth we could not make that construction
which is the real world. But taking the various experience-centres
as real, we may inquire, with reference to this manifolq, in what
consists the reality of the one world which they all suppose.
Every finite centre, we may lay down, intends an 'objective'
world; and the genesis oHhis mtention is an obscure and difficult
matter. We a ~ o t say anything on the subject which will be more
than an interpretation, but I offer this as a provisional account,
admitting that any account that expresses itself as a temporal
sequence can be only very provisional indeed. The first objects,
we may say, with which we come into contact are half-objects,*
they are other finite centres, not attended to directly as objects,
* But of course they are not apprehended as such. There IS a felt conflict and
difference between centres, and thIS breaks up the umty of our expressIon.
144
Solipsism
but are interpretations of recognized resistances and felt diver-
gences. vVe come to interpret our own experience as the attention
to a world of objects, as we feel obscurely an identity between the
experiences of other centres and our own. And it is this identity
which gradually shapes itself into the external world. There are
two (or more) worlds each continuous with a self, and yet running
in the other direction - somehow - into an identity. Thus in
adjusting our behaviour to that of others and in co-operating
with them we come to intend an identical world.
We ask then naturally, in what the identity consists, beyond
the <identical reference'. Yet while the question is natural, I
cannot admIt that it is legitimate. And I should like to recall
varlous passages in which I have spoken of <identical reference',
especially 1U connection with memory. It appeared there that an
element of identity might be present, without our being able to
isolate it as an actuality. The relation found to obtain between
an experience and our recollection of it was not a relation of mere
resemblance, but lnvolved a common reference to a third reality,
which was known simply as the reality which both intended. A
reference to an identity, It was laid down, is the identity, in the
sense in which a word i8 that which it denotes. An identity is
intended, and it could not have been intended, we say, unless it
was there, but its being 'there' consists simply in the intention,
and has no other meaning. What do we mean when we say that
two people see <the same' object? We think loosely that the
identity consists in the fact that when one looks at the object
from the same angle as the other, the two images before the two
minds are the same. We compare two prints of the same negative
and find them identical. But there is evidently a difference be-
tween the two cases (a difference which is ultimately, however,
one of degree) in that the difference between the two pomts of
view is a difference, if we choose to consider it so, of two whole
worlds, the identity is of two realities which cannot possibly be
set side by side and compared. All identity is ideal ... 'in this
sense that it involves the self-transcendence of that which is
identical' (Appearance, p. 526). And this fact, that identity in the
148
Solipsism
content of two minds is an identity of ideal meaning may cause us
to ask if even in the simplest case of comparison the identity is
not equally ideal. All identities which two objects may present,
though simply of colour or of form, involve a self-transcendence
on the part of the particulars. This means, of course, only that we
have no knowledge of mere particulars. But It means also that the
identity between one man's world and another's does not conSIst,
as we readily are lead to belIeve, in one world which is the world
of right perception, and which is, apart from being known, exactly
what it is when we know it.
This fact, furthermore, ought to be self-evident. Identity, we
have learned, is nowhere bare identity, but must be identity m
diversIty. If we are hit on the head with the same club, the club IS
only "the same' because it has appeared in two dIfferent contexts.
There are two different experiences, and the sameness is quite
Ideal. \Ve do, of course, partially put ourselves at the point of
view of the man who hit us, and partially at each other's points
of view; and it is the interweaving of these viewpoints which gives
us the objective club. There is no one club, no one world, WIthout
a dIversity of points of view for it to be one to. The "real' turns out
everywhere to be ideal- butiS' none the less real for that. Pomt to
anything as "independent' of a finite centre, and you find that whatis
independent is merely the moment of objectivity - and this is ideal.
When I say that there is one world because one world IS in-
tended, I have still stated only half of the case; for any explana-
tion in terms of 'because' (a term made necessary by the weakness
of human conceiving) can be only misleading unless we turn it
about the other way as well. Let us say, therefore, that we are
able to intend one world because our points of view are essentially
akin.* For it is not as if the isolated individuals had contnbuted
each a share and entered into partnership to provide a publIc
* ' ... the foundatIOn of It all IS thIS, that no phase In a partIcular consClOusness
IS merely a phase of the apparent subject, but It IS always and essentially a member
of a further whole of experience, whIch passes through and umtes the states of
many conSClOusnesses, but IS not exhausted in any, nor m all of them, as states,
taken together. It is true that my state of mind is mme, and yours is yours; but
not only do I cJ..perience in mine what you experience In yours - that would be
conSIstent with the total independence of the two minds - but I experIence It
144
80Upsism
world. The selves, on the contrary, find themselves from the start
in common dependence upon one indifferent Nature. Nature
assumes, inevitably, a dlfFerent aspect to each point of view; no
two finite centres, we may say, apprehend the same Nature, yet
each centre has pressed upon it the fact that from the one Nature
it with all its neighbours sprang. To claim that this is inconsistent
with the isolation of our monads is to confuse the genetic and the
structural standpoints. My mind, that is, I must treat as both
absolute and derived; absolute, in that it is a point of view from
which I cannot possibly escape (to which indeed I am bound so
closely that the word escape is without meaning); derived, in that
I am able, by virtue of the continuity of mmd with the non-
mental, to trace in some way its origin, with that of other minds,
from an indifferent material. Biologically, we see minds m a
common medmm, and treating minds thus as objects, we conclude
their content to be similar just as we find their physical structure
and their environment similar. And from this point of view we
talk about the one "external' world and the various "mental
contents' referring to it. For minds may be intended objects; and
their objectivity is continuous with their subjectivity, the mental
continuous with the merely mechanistic. But we must remember
that no Vlew is original or ultimate: when we inquire into the real
world, however, we mean the world from the viewpoints of finite
centres as subjects only; we mean the real world for us now, not
from the point of view of some further developed mind tracing its
ancestors and the world they lived in.
The world, we may insist, is neither one nor many except as that
one or many has meaning in experience, and it is eIther one or
many according as we contemplate it altogether as an object,
talkmg still, if you will, of minds, but meaning rather the pheno-
mena which mind presents to an observer: or as we treat the
world as finite centres and their experiences. From the first point
of view the world is a priori one; from the second point of view
dmerently from you, in such a way that there is a systematic relation between the
two contents experienced. and neither IS mtelligible or complete Wlthout the
other.' Bosanquet, P.Mn. of Ind. and Value, p. 815.
K 145 E.K.E.
Solipsism
the world is a priori many; and I am convinced that this is the
only form in which monism or pluralism can appear. And the two
views are so far from antagonistic as to be complementary. The
self, we nnd, seems to depend upon a world which in turn depends
upon it; and nowhere, I repeat, can we nnd anything original or
ultimate. And the self depends as well upon other selves; it is not
given as a direct experience, but is an interpretation of experience
by interaction with other selves (see Appearance, p. ~ 1 9 ) . The self
is a construction, and yet the
44
The doctrine of nnite centres appears in an interesting light
when compared with the theories of Leibniz, with which it has
very striking affinities. Compare, for example, the celebrated
paragraph of the Monadology, 57: "And as the same town, looked
at from various sides, appears quite different and becomes as it
were numerous in aspects, even so, as a result of the innmte
number of simple substances, it is as if there were so many different
universes, which, nevertheless, are nothing but aspects (per-
spectives) of a single universe, according to the special point of
view of each monad.' (Latta's ed., p. lt48).
It is easy to raise objections to Leibniz's form of statement,
but I think that his aim becomes more intelligible in the hght of
our 'finite centres'. Leibniz appears to have made the error, it is
true, of identifying a point of view with a felt unit, or self. * And
for Leibniz the internal view of the world was ultimate. But the
assertion that "the monads have no windows' in no wise entangles
him in solipsism, for it means (or may be taken to mean) what Mr
Bradley means in saying that our knowledge of other nnite centres
is only through physical appearance within our own world. When
an event occurs within my world it occurs to me, but I would not
be I apart from the event; it is from the beginning coloured by my
personality, as my personality is coloured by it. A theory of
internal relations is thus implicit; and perhaps a recognition of
the continuity of terms and relations contributed to the doctrine
'" 'Finite centres of feeling, while they last, are (so far as we know) not dlrectly
pervious to one another. But a self lS not the same as such a centre of ex-
perience.' Appearance, p. 464.
146
Solipsism
of monads. If anything could appear as really acting upon and
altering the self, the latter would take the place merely of one
object among others, and so far as it is subject, we can conceive it
as having aspects, but not relations. And when we qualify our
world by the recogmtion of another's it IS not hIs world as it is in
reality, but lus world as it affects us that enters into our world.
We arnve at the belief in other finite selves in a sense by inference,
though on the other hand it is assumed that these other selves
exist, or they could not be phenomenally represented m our world.
1'0 say that I can know only my own states, accordingly, is in no
wise the foundation of SolipsIsm, unless it were possible that I
should know my states as my states, and as nothing else, which
would be a palpable contradiction. What I know is my own state
simply as the real aspect (knowledge as obj ect) seems to take prece-
dence of the ideal aspect (knowledge as meaning). The statement
that 'monads have no wmdows', therefore, means only that the
objectivity of one's world is ideal; and that the reality is experience.
And the pre-established harmony IS unnecessary if we recognize
that the monads are not wholly distinc,t, and that the subjective
self is continuous With the self as object. A monad was for
Leibniz, I believe, something real in the way in which a physical
organism is real: he imagined t_he monads, that is, on this analogy,
and identified the with phenomenal soul. lS'mv ..for
Bradler...."the centre, (or what t call the point of view), is not
identical with th;-SOu[ We - Think Provisionally of -finite
ceclres -as the units of soul. life; units, however, whose limits
cannot be drawn with any precision. For we vary by passing from
one point of view to another or as I have tried to suggest, by
occupying more than one point of view at the same time, an
attitude which gives us our assumptions, our half-objects, our
figments of imagination; we vary by self-transcendence. The point
of view (or finite centre) has for its object one consistent
and accordingly no finite centre can be self-sufficient, for the life
of a soul does not consist in the contemplation of one consistent
world but in the painful task of unifying (to a greater or less
extent) jarring and incompatible ones, and passing, when possible,
147
Solipsism
from two or more discordant viewpoints to a higher which shall
somehow include and transmute them. The soul is so far from
being a monad that we have not only to interpret other souls to
ours elf but to interpret ours elf to ours elf. Wherever a pomt of
view may be distmguished, I say, there a point of view IS. And
whereas we may change our pomt of view, it is better not to say
that the point of VIew has changed. For If there is a noticeable
change, you have no identity of which to predicate the change.
The point of view, we may say, is as such purely ideal; it can
hardly be said to possess existence.
The doctrine here set forth must not however be construed as
a psychical atomism, or anything of that sort, the finite centres
(as I understand the matter) are not all of one size or shape, but
vary with the context. Thus, while one soul may experience
within itself many finite centres, the soul itself may be consldered
in a loose sense as a finite centre. The more of a personality it
the more harmonious and self-contained, the more definitely it is
said to possess a 'point of view', a point of view toward the social
world. 'Wherever, in short, there is a unity of consciousness, this
unity may be spoken of as a finite centre. Yet neither the term
'soul' nor the term 'self' IS ever identical 'with the term 'finite
centre'. 'Then from immedIate experience' (at any level) 'the self
emerges, and is set apart by a distinction' (p. 464).45 To r'ealize
that a point of view point of view IS already to have
it: what was merely a picture in two dimensions (if you please)
becomes a real1andscape with an infimty of aspects as, the 'what'
disengages itself from the 'that'. The 'what' continues to be
recognized as a true qualification of the 'that" but is as well a
quali:fication of the apprehending consciousness, and the real
object results from the abstraction and comparison of the various
points of view.
vVhat constitutes the difference, therefore, between two points
of view, is the difference which each is capable of making to the
other. There could be no such thing, we may sa" as a sino-Ie :finite
I... .. '" b
centre, for every experience implies the existence of something
independent of the experience, something capable, therefore, of
148
Solipsism
being experienced differently, and the recognition of this fact is
already the transition to another point of view. Treating the
experience as the reahty, we may say (ibid., p. 464) that 'Fmite
centres of feeling, while they last, are ... not dIrectly pervious to
one another'. So far as experiences go, we may be said in a sense
to live each in a different world. But 'world' in this sense, is not
the world with which solipsism is concerned, each centre of ex-
perience is unique, but is unique only with reference to a common
meaning. Two points of view, in consequence, can be said to
dIffer only so far as they intend the same object, though the
object, we have seen, is only such with reference to a point of view.
Two points of view take cognizance of each other, I suppose,
by each making a half-object of the other. Strictly speaking, a
point of view taking note of another is no longer the same, but a
third, centre of feeling; yet it is something different from a centre
of feeling: more properly a self, a 'construction based on, and
itself transcending, immediate experience'.46 Everywhere, we must
constantly remind ourselves, the difference is one of degree, and
when one finite centre affects another merely as an alteration in
its experience, and is not consciously recogmzed as another
centre, we can hardly say that there is a self. And inasmuch as the
finite centre is an experience, while the self is one aspect in that
experience, and again contains and harmonizes several experiences,
we may say that the self is both less and more than such a centre,
and is ideal. For this reason it is more correct to say that a self
passes from one point of view to another, than to say that one
point of view takes cognizance of another. But a finite centre may
be made an intended object by a self, and thus enter into another
finite centre, though not as such. Thus we may continue to say
that finite centres are impervious. Identity we find to be every-
where ideal, while finite centres are real. When we ask what,
finally, in the finite centre is the common property of several
finite centres, intending the same object, the answer is: nothing-
"really', everything - "ideally', and in practice there may be a
greater or less amount of community. We may schematize it
crudely thus:
149
In Theory
In Practlce
{
Really
Ideally
Really
Solipsism
{
ab All unique, but
All may be an intended object in an-
other finite centre.
c The intended object in each centre is
public. Whatever is made an object is
public.
d Two finite centres may be judged from
a third point of view to resemble each
other.
Ideally e As much is public as is not discernably
different.
Note that in (d) the resemblance is predlcated on the ground of
behaviour; it is predicated not of the centres as such, but inferred
from ideal identity of object when we observe two organisms be-
having in the same way toward what from our point of view is the
same object for each. Similarly we may infer the resemblance of a
centre of feeling in another self to one of our own, though the two
experiences as such have no relation to each other, not even the
relation of difference .
. The reflection of the world in finite centres, of a world which is
I real only as it appears in thos-;; is a form of monadism
which, as we find, by no means imPlies a 'pluralistic universe'.
These centres are not things, and to speak of them as
or 'isolated' is more misleading than illuminating. When we speak
of such isolated centres we mean always souls. A centre of ex-
perience, however, is always 'below, or else wider than and above,
the distinction' (Appearance, p. 468) of_self and not-self. A soul,
or a self (though the two terms are not everywhere equivalent
(see ibid., p. 464, note)) is always the 'creature of an.i!!i.elle.t..ual
construction' ,47 it is never simply given; but depends upon a trans-
cendence of immediacy. And a doctrine of solipsfsm would have to
show that myself and my states were immediately gi;en, and other
selves inferred. But just because what is given is not my self but
my world) the question is meaningless. The process of the genesis
150
Solipsism
of the self and of other selyes is ultimately perhaps unknowable,
smce there is no "because' which we can assign. There are
reasons for believing that externality recognized as force or
as spirit before it was apprehended in the form of objects; as the
primitive life, is immersed in practice and incapable
of the degree of speculative inte!"est necessary for the constitution
of an object. 9n the other hand :ve may say that we know other
finite centres only through the medlation of objects. "The
immediate experiences of finite beings cannot, as 'such, come
together .... A direct connexion between souls we cannot say is
Impossible, but on the other hand, we find no good reason for
supposing it to exist .... We may- assume then that souls do not
mfluence each other except through their bodies.' (Appearance,
pp. 303-4).
The issue here hangs only on the exact meaning which we are
to attribute to the word "knowledge'. We become acquainted with
the existence of other souls, we may say, through the influence
which they exert upon the content of our experience, but we only
become acquainted with that content as content through the
postulation of foreign activities influencing it, so that we are lead
to distinguish a "what' and a "that'. But the question at what
point either becomes explicit is essentially unanswerable. We can
only say that the self, the other selves, and the objects do in this
process become more precise, and clear. And we can say that we
have no knowledge of other souls except through their bodies,
because it is only thus that we can enter into their world.
On the other hand, as we need to be reminded, we have no
direct (immediate) knowledge of anything: the 'immediately
given' is the bag of gold at the end of the
a put your finger upon
even the simplest datum and say "this we know'. l.n the growth
world we live in, there is no one stage,
and no one aspect, which you can take as the foundation. Radical
empiricists assume that we have an "immediate' knowledge of a
mysterious flux, and criticists assume that we know sense-data, or
universals, immediately, as we do not know objects or other
151
Solipsism
selves. But where we are first interested in knowing, there is the
first thing known; and in this way we may say (if we choose to
employ this language) that that of which we have immediate
knowledge is the external world, for without externality there is
no knowledge. The platform of knowing, in fact, is the assertion
of something to be known, something independent of me so far as
that knowing is concerned. No absolute assertion about the
object's dependence or independence is made or implied. Hence
if the object is only my state both object and I must be strangely
transmuted, for I only know myself in contrast to a world. And it
will be equally true to say that I am only a state of my objects.
But, it will be objected, if knowledge of objects belongs to a world
which is admittedly a construction, should not we return to the
primitive experience to find reality? Or are you not tacitly
affirming that the world in which we find ourselves now is the real
world, and is the process of which you speak not a process in
knowledge rather than a process in reahty? This question intro-
duces us to the relation of thought and reality, and the doctrine
of degrees of truth, with which I intend to close.
15!
CHAPTER VII
Conclusion
T
he task of this concludmg chapter is merely to weave
together the conclusions ofthe other chapters and present
_ them if possible as a coherent whole, and to touch as well
upon certain consequences which have not as yet appeared. We
may draw, I believe, certain inferences as to the nature of reahty
which will forbid us to accept either an idealistic or a realIstic
philosophy at its full value. But I believe that all ofthe conclusions
that I have reached are in substantial agreement with Appearance
and Reality, though I have been compelled to reject certain
theories, logical and psychological, which appear In the Principles
and elsewhere. Out of absolute idealism we retain what I consider
its most important doctrines, Degrees of Truth and Reality and the
Internality of Relations; we reject the reliance upon "conscious-
ness' or 'the work of the mind' as a principle of explanation. WIth
regard to objects, I have reached the conclusion that all objects
are non-mental; and with regard to mental activity, I conclude
that we find only physiological activity or logical activity, both
independent of, and more fundamental than what we call the
activity of mind. But the materialism, which (as exemplified
particularly in the work of Mr Bosanquet) from one point of view
may very justly be said to lie at the basis of idealism, presents only
one aspect of the situation. If the aim of my examination of
structural psychology was to demonstrate that the more accu-
rately and scientifically one pursues the traces of mentality in the
'mind' of the individual, the less one finds; so on the other hand
my examination ofthe epistemologist's world has been an attempt
to prove that the more closely one scrutinizes the 'external world',
and the more eagerly and positively one plucks at it, the less there
153
Conclusion
is to see and touch. Cut off a 'mental' and a "physical' world,
dissect and classify the phenomena of each: the mental resolves
into a curious and intricate mechanism, and the physical reveals
itself as a mental construct. If you will find the mechanical any-
where, you will find it in the workings of mind, and to inspect
living mind, you must look nowhere but in the world outside.
Such IS the general doctrine to which my theory of objects points.
There are other conclusions bound up with this doctrine. As to
the problem of knowledge, we have found that it does not exist.
Knowledge, that is to say, is not a relation, and cannot be
explained by any analysis. We do not say, however, that in know-
ing the "mmd' comes mto immediate and direct contact with the
object, for we find that such an assertion has no great meaning,
for there is no 'mind' for the object to be brought into contact
With, and with the physical organism the object known mayor
may not be in direct contact. And to say that the object is de-
pendent on or independent of the knower - this again I think
is a statement of no great importance, though of the two alterna-
tives I think that it is perhaps truer to say that the object is
independent. For qua known, the object is simply there, and
has no relation to the knower whatever, and the knower, qua
knower, is not a part of the world which he knows: he does not exist.
This bare and hypothetical knowledge, I admit, is only a part
of what serves our use. We do not, in point of fact, simply know:
we make tentative and hardly formulated theories of knowledge
in practice, theories which go to make up our real knowledge.
And again there is much in that which we call knowledge which is
not knowing in what narrowly speaking is the only legitimate
sense. It is these two disturbing factors which complicate and
indeed create the problem. The point is worthy of great elabora-
tion, and even in so sketchy a discussion as the present may
occupy us for several moments. What I mean is this. Theoretically,
that which we know is merely spread out before us for pure contem-
plation, and the subject, the I, or the self, is no more consciously
present than is the inter-cellular action. But I do not say that
such a condition is or was ever realized in practice; indeed, such
1541
Conclusion
knowledge would hardly be of any profit. The real situation is
rather that we have as I have tried to show in the first chapter a
felt whole in which there are moments of knowledge: the objects
are constantly shifting, and new transpositions of objectivity and
feeling constantly developing. We perceive an object, we will say,
and then perceive it in a special relation to our body. In our
practical relations with objects we find it convenient and even
essential to consider the object's relation to ourself as Itself an
object, in many cases this is what is important. This self may be
primanly the body, but the body is in felt continuity with the
spirItual self. And in cases where the presence of the self is an
important part in the meaning of the knowledge, a sort of theory
of knowledge is at work. It is this sort ofknowmg, I presume, that
induces us to think of knowing as a relation. There IS a relation
between the object and the self: a relation which is theoretical
and not merely actual, in the sense that the self as a term capable
of relation with other terms is a construction. And this self which
is objectified and related is continuous and felt to be continuous
with the self which is subject and not an element m that which is
known. As it is metaphysics which has produced the self so it is
epistemology, we may say, which has produced knowledge. It is
perhaps epistemology (though I offer this only as a suggestion,
and to make clearer the sort of thing that I mean) that has given
us the fine arts; for what was at first expression and behaviour
may have developed under the complicatIons of self-conscious-
ness, as we became aware of ourselves as reacting aesthetically to
the object.
In any case, we are constantly developing and rectifying our
perceptions by comparison with other perceptions, we are con-
stantly on the lookout for error, and our recognition and allow-
ances for error already nominate us as epistemologists; for this
means that we have a tentative working theory of our relation to
the external world. It is thus, to a certain extent, a theory of
knowledge that gives us an external world, but a theory which
cannot hold beyond a certain range of practice. Theory and
practice are, we find, inextricable: for without theory we should
155
Conclusion
not have our present practice, and without the practice in which
it finds its application the theory would be meaningless.
No theory of knowledge, consequently, can establish itself on a
:firm foundation by de:fining the sort of relation that knowing is,
for knowing is not a relation; in order to give any account of
knowing we must bring in the terms which are related, and these
terms are only provisionally de:finable. \-Ve can only de:fine the
thing as known and the knower as knowmg, and yet both things
and knower imply a transcendence ofthese limitations, a transcen-
dence which has no end. And it is only so far as our knowledge is
invalid or incomplete that research into the nature of knowing
can bear any fruit, for when we believe our knowledge to be correct
and sufficient we can do no more than describe the physical
relations between our body and the object apprehended. In any
analysis of knowledge, knowing is assumed; we can to a certain
extent explain false knowing in terms of true knowing, but we
cannot explain true knowing in terms of anything else.
While we cannot, it thus appears, 'know knowing', what we can
do is to describe in a general way the process of translti.on and
development which takes place when there is an organism which
is a part of the world and yet is capable to a certain degree of
contemplating the world. Knowing, we have said, IS inextricably
intertwined with processes which are not knowing; knowing,
furthermore, is only an aspect in a continuous reality. We can to
a certain extent describe the rise and decay of objects. And this IS
not because the object is essentially dependent upon conscious-
ness, for I do not know what such a phrase would mean: but
because consciousness and its object are both only evanescent
aspects in reality. 'When we think what knowing really means in
our experience,48 how essentially relative its meaning is, for it can
never escape from the ultimate limits of its own meaning, and
even when it consciously intends to be unconditionally true, that
unconditionality is within these bounds and no statement can
claim to be true except when it has meaning. So that while we
make no attempt to explain knowledge, we can I think offer a
limited insight into its nature by indicating the fringe through
156
Conclusion
which it passes into something else, and by indicating the stages
ofthe process which we call degrees of truth.
My first step, in accordance with this plan, was to attempt to
suggest the reality out of which subject and object are sorted, and
upon which as background they have theIr meaning. Our first step
IS to discover what experience is not, and why It is essentially indefin-
able. We saw that within experience there presented themselves the
two aspects ofideality and reality, but that this distinction did not
correpond to a division among objects: for a thing is real or ideal
only in relation. We found that what we call the 'real' in experience
is largely ideal, and that what we call 'ideal' is largely real, and
that Reality itself would not be reality without its appearances.
The ideal and the real, the mental and the non-mental, the active
and the passive, these are terms which apply only to appearance,
which take their meaning from narrow and practical contexts.
In seeking for the object of knowledge, then, we need no
investigation into the process of knowing or the nature of an
external world It is not true that we deny the existence of an
external world, for anyone who pursues this path of inquiry will
come to the conclusion that this question is ultimately meaning-
less. But demanding at the start what it is that we know for most
certain (and thIS method deserves the name of empiricism as
much as anything does) we find that we are certain of everything,
- relatively, and of nothing, - positively, and that no knowledge
will survive analysis. The VIrtue of metaphysical analysis is in
showmg the destructibility of everything, since analysis gives us
something equally real, and for some purposes more real, than
that which is analysed. In analysing knowledge, we merely educe
the fact that knowledge is composed of ingredients which are
themselves neither known nor cognitive, but which melt into the
whole which we eaU experience. * The analysis of the object, from
this point of view, reveals the fact that in asking what the object
* 'For whlle the Thls cannot be brought into the unity of knowledge, It IS unques-
bonably a part of reality. And so the fallure of knowledge to brmg it into umty
With itselfjnvolves that the part of the object which tS brought mto umty With the
subject is only an abstraction from the full object .. The result 15 that we know
objects, so to speak, from the outside . .' McTaggart, Heg. Dial6ctic, p. 222.
157
Conclusion
is we merely turn in a circle. The object is not its qualities, for
these are simply enjoyed with respect to the object; the object as
such, it transpires, is merely the point of attention; that whIch an
electron, a Balkan league, my table, whiteness, have in common
as objects is just the moment of objectivity. The objecthood of an
object, It appears, is the fact that we intend it as an object: itis the
attending that makes the object, and yet we may say with equal
truth that if there were no object we could not attend. The fact
that an object is an object, in this light, appears to be the least
fact about it, and its reality is due to the experiences which cluster
around It: an object is real, we may say, in proportion to its
relations outside of its objectivity.
I should be asked, no doubt, whether an object ceases to be an
object on ceasing to be known. This question I feel justified in
refusmg to answer, since I cannot feel that anyone who under-
stands what I have meant by objectivity will ask it. For practical
purposes, undoubtedly, we may think of objects as objects when
they are not objects to anyone, or I may think of an object as an
object when it is the object of your attention and not of mine:
but in general to think of an object is (not to think of it as my
object, but) to make an object of it. The object, I mean to say, is
none the less real when I am not attending to it, but it is no longer
object. For all that 'object' means is a connection of certain
experiences wIth a moment of objectivity, of experiences which
would not exist as what they are unless connected in that way
with tJzat point of attentIOn (moment of objectivity), and of a
point of attention whlCh would not be without those qualItIes,
for those qualities essentially refer to it, and it is only the fact of
their intended reference. The object is a complex of experiences
with a reference, and the reference itself is an experience. But we
cannot say that it is my experience, for I am only I in relatlOn to
ohjects. The object thus resolves itself into experience. But this
by no means implies that the object does not persist outside of my
experience, or that another subject may not know the same object.
}'or in making this last statement we have so shifted the stage
properties that 'object' no longer means exactly the same thing.
158
Conclusion
This should have been made clear by the discussion of solipsism.
Wherever I intend an object, there an object is; wherever two
people intend the same object, there an identical object is, and
wherever we together intend the existence of an object outside of
our knowledge, there an object does exist outside of our knowledge;
but we must not forget that in all three of these cases we have
theory as well as practice. From one point of view we know that
the object exists; but from another point of view this is mere
hypothesis: we have a certain latitude, that is, as to what we shall
take for granted, and we may put ourselves at the individual or
the social point of view, as we please; but we must not forget that
unless we make allowance at the start for the equality of their
claims to vahdity we shall be left with a most uncomfortable
hiatus, for we can never deduce the one from the other.
It is difficult to tell when we are assigning to a word only such
precision and porttfe as is justified in practice, and when we are
going beyond use into pure speculation which will make no
difference to our practice. We may easily be overawed by language,
and attribute to it more philosophic prestige than it really de-
serves. The word 'object' means a certain type of experience and
the theories involved in that experience: theories which lose their
meaning beyond a certain point. The only way in which we can
handle reality intellectually is to turn it into objects, and the
justification of this operation is that the world we live in has been
built in this way. At the same time we are forced to admit that
the construction is not always completely successful. While we
can to a certain extent treat relations as if they were terms, we
find with such entities as ideas that to treat them so is almost a
step backward rather than a step forward, masmuch as we can
only apprehend their reality by putting ourselves in the place
of an obscure world and abandoning a clear and scientific one.
There is left psycho-physics and rational psychology. There have
developed, I mean to say, certain objects which I have denomi-
nated half-objects, having much of the character of objects
without being wholly apprehensible. Their nature is that they
do not belong to any point of view, but depend for their existence
159
Conclusion
upon our apprehending two points of view at once, and pursuing
neither. Thus the 'mental' would have no place in a 'rear world
such as the scientist intends, and the real world would consist in
the relations of points whose entire existence was relation: whose
reality consisted in their external relations. And it is obvious that
such a view is in its way quite as tenable as any other: a theory
which reduces reality to mathematical relations of simples is
continuous with our ordinary tendency toward objectification,
and hence is not less 'true' in the usual sense, than any other;
inasmuch as objectification is the creation of a new world, and the
assertion that the two worlds are the same is an act of faith, only
to be contrasted with another act of faith to the effect that the
two are not the same.
The fundamental dIfficulty is this. When we attend to an object
we do not know precisely what it is that we denote or that we
mean. In any case of ocular error this fact is patent, and is more
than suggested by the discussions of the Theaetetus. When I
mistake one object for another, I can say loosely that the real
object was the object which I 'really' saw, and upon the sight of
which I made a mistaken inference. But you never can tell at
precisely what point the mistake occurred; how much that is to
say was received unaltered from without and how much was
constructed from within. We have come upon this impasse in
theorizing upon bears: far as the object is experienced as that
object so far it is that object, and the rectification is a matter
of further experience, through which the illusory object and the
real object are bound together in an (ideal) identity of meaning
in a practical world. It is, in fact, this real world, which is not
metaphysically the real world, that unites the false and the true
in a common reference, and thus makes the false false and the
true true. Now there is precisely the same difficulty when we
explain an appearance by a reality: when we appear only to be
revealing the reality of the appearance we may be said to be only
presenting another appearance, and the greater the dissimilarIty
that we find between the two the more certainly our construction
falls apart into two worlds.
160
Conclusion
The object of attention, in the :first place, has not certain
de:finite limits: its "that' and its 'what' exhibit a degree of loose-
ness in practice. The object can be the same object though its
description more or less vary, and the same description can
preserve itself through an inde:finite variation of the attention.
We never can say, actually, to exactly what we are attending; it
is never the hypothetical point and it is to a large extent the ideal
synthesis of data by meaning which constitutes the point of
attention. I look at a bottle, and the point to whIch I attend is the
bottle; though not necessarily the real bottle, for there may be
perhaps no real bottle there; so that we may say the real pomt of
attention is the intended object. In this sense, attention is the
mtention to attend. The attention is not in practice attention
to a point, but to a that wmch is a that because It has a single
meaning. A that which we did not quahfy as a what would not be
even a mere that. On the other hand the two aspects of the real
object, the thatncss and the whatness, are always distmct because
of their difference in meaning; so that we say, in dlfferent senses,
that we attend to the object which is that and what, and that we
attend literally to the that alone. Inasmuch as the that IS the
point of reference of its common qualities, its persistence depends
upon our recognition of the community ofmeanmg of the qualities,
and this community of meaning is ultimately practical. It IS
ultimately in every case a question of practice how far any group
of qualities constitutes one object, and metaphYSICS depends upon
our ability and good-will to grasp appearance and reahty as one.
And this limitation is as true of one sort of metaphysic as of
another.
Regarding the matter from this light, we must to a certain
extent put our theories to the pragmatic test. An account of
reality, or of any :field of it, which has the appearance of going to
the point of substituting a new type of objects for the old WIll be a
true theory and not merely a new world, if it is capable of making
an actual practIcal difference in our attitude toward the old, or
toward some already accepted object, so that there may be an
identity uniting differences of quality. It is obvious that it is this
L 161 li.J::.li.
Conclusion
felt identity between appearance and reality that will constitute
explanation, and that the identity is a fragile and msecure thing.
Adhering to a strictly common-sense view (which may be defined,
I presume, as that which insists on the reality of the more primary
objects) the theories of speculative physics seem perhaps as
chimerical and uncalled-for as those of metaphysics. There is
however considerable difference. A science is such because it is
able to deal with objects which are all of one type; and the aim of
each science is to reduce reality (so far as reality comes within the
purview of that science) to one type of object, and the ultimate
type of object I should suppose (acknowledging my incompetence
to speak) to be points in mathematical relation. But physical
theories (so far as I can pretend to be informed, from popular
accounts), are apt to end in mystery, inasmuch as the final object
is often not an object at all; ifthe ultimate is some kind of energy
or motion it is not an object but at most a half-object, since It
possesses some internality. At this point a theory would become
metaphysical, passing from one type of object to another; and
two types can only be held together by an act of faith.
It is not wIthin my present purpose or capacity to schematize
the various types of object and their relations. Chapters Hand
HI were devoted to one of the most important classes, that of the
half-objects of psychology. Chapter IV endeavoured to set forth
the ideality of all objects, and the relativity of the distinction
between 'real' objects and 'ideal' objects; finally,49 with the dif-
ference between real and unreal objects, and the analysis of
imaginary objects and assumptions. The fifth chapter was engaged
upon the object as the object of one and as the object of several
knowers; the resolution, on the one hand, of the object into
experience, and its maintenance as identical reference. We have
thus distinguished broadly several types; things, half-objects,
double objects, and objects of reference. Half-objects are such as
exist, like ideas, only from an internal-external point of view;
double objects are such as exist as objects from two points of
view, like mental images, hallucinations and objects in fiction,
which have a reality in their own space and time, and a different
162
Conclusion
reality m our space and hme. * Objects of reference are such as
unreal objects, where the reality of the object consists m barely
more than the object's bemg mtended (and perhaps 'sensations'
and categones, wluch are supposed to be enjoyed and not con-
templated, belong in this class: for the being of such objects
consIsts m theIr not bemg objects) All these types, and 'uni-
versals' and 'particulars' as well, may be reduced, m a certam
aspect, to thmgs, ** for things are the lowest order, so to speak,
and on the other hand the thing is analysable mto intended
objects (qualities) and the intention (or moment of objectivlty).
But every transformatwn of type mvolves a leap which SCIence
cannot take, and which metaphysIcs must take. It lllvolves an
interpretation, a transmigration from one world to another, and
such a pIlgrimage mvolves an act offaith.
In a transformatIOn of object-type there is a change of point of
VIew, m a metaphysical theory there is an attempt to bmd
together all points of view in one.
And tlus, I thmk, should show us why the notIOn of truth,
literal truth, has so httle direct applicatIOn to phIlosophic theory.
A philosophy can and must be worked out with the greatest
rigour and disciplme in the detaIls, but can ultimately be founded
on nothing but faIth: and this IS the reason, I suspect, why the
novelties in philosophy are only m elaboration, and never in
fundamentals. There are two uses of the word truth, as we are
apt to forget in philosophizing: the truth or error of the meta-
phYSIcian does not concern the hlstonan in any literal sense. The
hlstonan sets out m search of truth from a different gate. And of
course the only real truth is the whole truth I have called atten-
tion to the real world (Chapter V), as the felt background agamst
which we project our theories, and with reference to which our
speculations have their use We all recognize the world as the
same 'that'; it is when we attempt to describe it that our worlds
fall apart, for as we have seen, the same 'that' can only persist
through a limited range of whatness. But just as we all admit the
* ThIS depends, of course, upon the contmulty of symbol and symbohzed.
** These can of course be double half-objects as well.
163
Conclusion
world to be the same world, though we cannot specify in precisely
what respects, for there are no precise respects, so we feel that
there are truths valid for this world, though we do not know what
these truths are; and It is with this sort that the refined and
subtilized common sense which IS Critical Taste occupies itself.
The true critic is a scrupulous avoider of formulae; he refrains
from statements which pretend to be literally true; he finds fact
nowhere and approximation always. His truths are truths of
experience rather than of calculation.
Even these lived truths are partial and fragmentary, for the
finest tact after all can give us only an interpretation, and every
mterpretation, along perhaps with some utterly contradlctory
interpretation, has to be taken up and reinterpreted by every
thinking mind and by every civilization. This is the significance
of the late Samuel Butler's epigram to the effect that the whole
duty of man was to serve both God and Mammon: for both God
and Mammon are interpretations of the world and have to be
reinterpreted. It is this sort of interpretation (which formally
consists I believe in transformations of object-type) that the
historian, the literary critic, and the metaphysician are engaged
With. Yet the difference between interpretation and descriptIOn
remains probably a question of degree. When the objects dealt
with are close enough to the physical foundations of our existence
to be m practice identical for all individuals, so that only one
point of view is involved, we get truths which are equally true for
everyone; and to what extent differences of opinion are tenable,
and how deep into the body of a SCIence these differences may
sink, are questions which each science must work out for itself ....
And If you wish to say that only those truths which can be
demonstrated can be called true, I will acquiesce, for I am as good
a materialist* as anybody; but though materialist, I would point
out what a little way such truths bring us. For materialism itself
is only an interpretation, and we cannot assert that all the types
* 'For how m'>tructive and how amusmg to observe In each case the conflict of
sensation with Imported and foreign experience. Perhaps no truth after all could
be half so rich and half bO true as the result of thiS Wild discord - to one who sees
from the centre.' Appearance. p.172.
164
Conclusion
of object which we meet are reducible to this one type of thing.
Any assertion about the world, or any ultimate statement about
any object in the world, will inevitably be an interpretation. It is a
valuation and an assignment of meaning. The things of which we
are collectively certain, we may say our common formulae, are
certainly not true. What makes a real world is difference of
opinion" I remember a phrase of Eucken's, a phrase which had a
certam entrain about it: ea gibt keine Privatwahrheiten (there are
no private truths). I do not recall the context, and am not con-
cerned wIth the meaning which the phrase had there, but I should
reverse the decision, and say: All sIgnificant truths are private
truths. As they become public they cease to become truths; they
become facts, or at best, part of the public character; or at worst,
catchwords.
If these reflections are meant to be taken seriously, I shall be
told, what excuse is there for a philosophy of the absolute? a
philosophy which transforms objects to the drastic extent of
transforming them all into one, and then declaring that this is no
object at all? Such a question, though natural, would show I
think a complete ignorance of the nature of the "dialectic process'.
The fact that we can think only in terms of things does not
compel us to the conclusion that reality conSIsts of things. We
have found from the :first that the thing is thoroughly relative,
that it exists only in a context of experience, of experience with
which it is continuous. From first to last reality is experience, but
experience would not (so far as we know) be possible without
attention and the moment of objectivity. We are able to dis-
tinguish a growth in clearness of the object, a detachment and
independence which it seems to have in greater degree in relation
to the higher forms of life: so that we can say, from our point of
view, that subject and object emerge from a state of feeling. We
can I think say this truly from our point of view. At the same time
we must remember that in saying anything about types of
consciousness different from our own, we are making statements
* The materialism advocated is in substance, I think, the materialISm of Mr
Bosanquet.
165
Conclusion
about worlds which are different from ours, though continuous.
Truth on our level is a different thing from truth for the jellyfish,
and there must certainly be analogies for truth and error in
jellyfish hfe. So that what in one aspect is a development of the
real world is from another aspect a new world. And yet the state-
ment that there is such a development WIll be true so far as it goes.
And we have the rIght to say that the world is a construction.
Not to say that it is my construction, for in that way '1' am as
much 'my' constructlOIl as the world is, but to use the word as
best we can without lmplying any active agent: the world IS a
construction out of finite centres. Any partIcular datum can be
certum only with regard to what is built upon it, not in itself.
and every experience contains the principle of its own self-
transcendence. Every experience is a paradox in that it means
to be absolute, and yet is relative; in that it somehow always goes
beyond itself and yet never escapes itself The simple error of
mistaking one man for another illustrates this well enough. There
is an Ideal identity which persists between experiences and
rectIfies our judgments; and it is thIS Identity, together with the
transcendence, which gIves us degrees of truth. This theory simply
asserts that a reality, a that, may persist under different condi-
tions of whatne88, though the that be indefinable, i.e though we
do IlOt know what that it IS that has persisted. We never know,
in any assertion, just what, or how much, we are asserting.
4
' "We
denote a that winch as like as not turns out not to be the that
that we thought it was; it continues to be the same that but with
very different qualitIes: and the truth in question is found by
contmually analysing the given and widening its relations.
Knowledge means a greater control over the material, a.nd this
control can only be given by increasing and developing the
content. \Vhether we say that this is a new world or not is a
matter of practical convenience. But we do intend it to be the
same, and we feel that it is the reahty whICh we failed at first to
* ':::-J 0 Judgement l ~ ever entIrely severed from a larger background ofmeamng,
though the background may be relahvely obscure except at that portIOn of ltself
whIch IS thrown mto relief and formulated as thi8 Judgment.' Joachllfl, Natu1'O of
'i'ruth, p. 113.
166
Conclusion
grasp. The cruder and vaguer, or more limited, is somehow con-
tamed and explained in the wider and more preClse, and this
feeling of identity is all that is needed for the postulation of
identity.* No judgment is limited to the matter in hand: you
affirm that somethmg is somethmg else; and in the simple
analytic judgment of sense you posit a 'that' to deny it. The
judgment which you make is true only withm the range of your
experience, for it is the use you make of it that determines lts
meamng And furthermore no judgment is true until you under-
stand it, and you never wholly understand it, because 'under-
standmg' expenence means merely knowing how to use It; so that
what we actually know of a judgment is not its truth but its
utility (and truth never is utility). That at which we aim IS the
real as such; and the real as such IS not an object.
Thus the process toward the theoretical goal returns upon
itself. We alm at a real thing: but everything IS real as experience,
and as thing everything is ideal. When we define an experience,
we substitute the defimtion for the experience, and then experience
the definition; though the original experience may have been itself
a definition: but the experIencing is quite another thing from the
defining. You start, or pretend to start, from experience - from
any expenence - and build your theory. You begin With truths
which everyone will accept, perhaps, and you find connections
which no one else has discovered. In the process, reality has
changed, in one sense; for the world of your theory IS certainly a
very different world from the world from which you began. To the
builder of the system, the identity binding together the appearance
and the reality is evident; to anyone outside of the system it IS
not evident. To the builder the process IS the process of reality,
for thought and reality are one; to a critic, the process lS perhaps
only the process of the builder's thought. From the critic's
standpoint the metaphysician's world may be real only as the
child's bogey is real. The one thinks of reality in terms of his
* . The sCiences of botany, of the phYSIOlogy of the senses, of the phYSIcal con-
ditions of colour, &c. - these may be said to absorb and to preserve the "truth"
ofsuch Judgements as "thIS tree IS green".' Ibid., pp. 112-13.
167
Conclusion
system; the other thinks of the system in terms of the inde:finite
social reality. There occurs, in short, just what is sure to occur in
a world in which subject and predicate are not one. Metaphysical
systems are condemned to go up like a rocket and come down like
a stick. The question can always be asked of the closest-woven
theory: is this the reality of my world of appearance? and if I do
not recognize the identity, then it is not. It will not do to say that
my denial reasserts, unless I see that it does. For a metaphysics
to be accepted, good-will is essential. Two men must intend the
same object, and both men must admit that the object intended
is the same.
We are forced to the assumption that truth is one, and to the
assumption that reahty is one. But dissension rises when we ask
the question: what one? Our system has pretended to be about
the world of those who do not accept it as much as about the
world of those who do. And the world, as we have seen, exists only
as it is found in the experiences of :finite centres, experiences so
mad and strange that they will be boiled away before you boil
them down to one homogeneous mass. Thus calamity menaces
our theory whether it be a theory of coherence or of correspondence.
If of correspondence, where can you say that there exists the
world to correspond? For such a world would be susceptible to all
the criticisms which we have directed against the objects within
the world. And if of coherence, it serves us no better; for what is
it that coheres:> ideas, we shall be told, and not realities; and the
whole structure is a faquir's show for a penny.
In part, I believe, these objections are trivial and in part
mistaken. The notion of correspondence, as applied here, exhibits
merely a case of the seduction of psychology. There is no question
of correspondence (I have tried to show), there is no mere 'idea"
except ideally in practice, when we :find an 'objective' world
because we have other people's 'ideas' which clash and conflict
with our own. How can the notion of correspondence apply in
metaphysics until we have a social metaphysical background as
we have a social background for our non-metaphysical theories?
And this will never be. So long as our descriptions and explanations
168
Conclusion
can vary so greatly and yet make so little practical difference, how
can we say that our theories have that mtended ldentIcal reference
which is the objective criterion for truth and error? And on the
other hand our theories make all the difference in the world,
because the truth has to be my truth before it can be true at all.
This is because an objective' truth IS a relative truth: all that we
care about is how it works, it makes no dIfference whether a
thing really is green or blue, so long as everyone behaves toward
It on the belief that it is green or blue. But a metaphysical
doctrine pretends to be true' simply, and none of our pragmatic
tests will apply. The notion of correspondence will not do, for it
has no meaning here. The notion of consistency falls in the same
way, ifit is not merely ideas' that we are examining, but reality.
The Absolute, we find, does not fall Within any of the classes of
objects: it is neIther real nor unreal nor imaginary. But I do not
think that supersubtle defence is necessary. A metaphysic may
be accepted or rejected without our assummg that from the
practical point of view it is either true or false. The point is that
the world of practical veri:fication has no definite frontiers, and
that it is the business of philosophy to keep the frontiers open.
If I have inSIsted on the practical (pragmatic?) in the constitution
and meaning of objects, it is because the practical is a practical
metaphysic. And this emphasIs upon practice - upon the
relativity and the instrumentality of knowledge - is what impels
us toward the Absolute.
50
169
Notes
Many of Mr Eliot's references are glven m an abbreviated form
which the reader can easIly expand by consulting the Selected
B'ibliography. Mmor maccuracies in Mr Eliot's references and
within his quotations have generally been corrected wherever they
occur in the 1916 texts. It IS only in those cases where a reference
is called for but is either not given at all, or else given in a con-
fusing or significantly dlfferent form, that an additional note has
been provIded here. "Within the texts, these end notes are de-
signated by raIsed numbers whereas Mr Eliot's own footnotes
are designated by asterisks.
Anne C Bolgan
Knoroledge and Experience in the Philosophy ofF. H. Bradley:
CHAPTER I
page 16. 1 Bradley, Essays on Truth and Reality, 161.
page ~ 5 .. ~ . Bradley, Essays on Truth and Reality, 170.
page ~ 8 .. 3. Bradley, Appearance and Realit,y, 407.
page ~ 8 . 4. Bradley, Appearance and Reality, 407.
CHAPTER IT
page 41. 5. The three quotations here are from Moore, 'The
Nature of Judgment" 177
page 43. 6. Bosanquet, The Essentials of Logic, 75.
pages 47-8. 7. Mr Eliot's quotations from pages 3 and 4 of
Bradley's The Principles of Logic are slightly inac-
curate and some connecting sentences wmch clartfy
the idea considerably have been omitted. The passage,
with the relevant parts added, reads as follows:
'For loglCal purposes Ideas are symbols, and they are
170
Notes
nothing but symbols. And, at the risk of common-
place, before I go on, I must try to say what a symbol
IS.
'In all that is we can distmguish two sides, (1) exis-
tence and (ii) content. In other words we perceive both
that it is and what it IS. But in anythmg that is a
symbol we have also a third sIde, its slgnificatlOn, or
that which It means ....
'But there is a class of facts which possess an other
and addItional third sIde. They have a meaning, and
by a sign we understand any sort of fact which is
used with a meaning. The meaning may be part of the
original content, or it may have been discovered and
even added by a further extension. Still this makes no
difference. Take anythmg which can stand for any-
thing else, and you have a sign. BesIde its own prlvate
existence and content it has this third aspect .... A
sign IS any fact that has a meaning, and meaning
consists of a part of the content (original or acqUlred),
cut off, fixed by the mind, and consIdered apart from
the existence of the sIgn.'
page 5 ~ 8. In the original typescript, this sentence reads. 'You
cannot say simply" is Identical with a", but you say
.. is identical with a, with regard to the identity of B
wIth b" and vice versa.' The sense, however, clearly
requires the insertion of the capital letter A in the
spaces left open and they have therefore been added to
the 1916 text.
page 55. 9. This sentence makes sense If we alter the final
phrase to read: ' ... but about the present future.'
page 55. 10. The phrase is Bradley's. See E s s a ~ y s on Truth and
Reality, 40.
pages 55-6. 11. 111' Eliot's meaning here is easlly clanfied it' we
read the passage as follows:
'The defect, in that It was vaguer, less of an idea, than
the world of others; the superiority, m that the shadows
171
Notes
pointed toward a reality, which, ifit had been realized,
would have been in some respects a higher type of
reality than that ofthe ordmary world. Compared to it,
the ordmary world would be less real, and that which
the ordinary world might be saId to '"mean".'
page 652. 152. Stout, A Manual oJ Psychology, 60.
page 66. IS. The first sentence quoted from Alexander in this
paragraph is from page 6 oFMental ActIvity in Willmg
and m Idea" whereas the remaimng three quotations
are from pages 7, IS, and 1 respectively of 'On Sensa-
tions and Images'. The first of these three quotations
should begm WIth the sentence, 'I stated roundly that
mind consisted of conations .. :, and the second, ac-
cording to the origmal, should read as follows: 'The
imaging of an external or physical thing is of course
mental. What is here maintamed is that the Image
itself IS non-mental, or external, or I am prepared to
say physical.'
page 67. 14. The sense here requires the deletion of the word
'IS' and the insertIOn of the word 'm-wIves'. The sen-
tence would then read: 'SensatIOn as known always in-
volves some degree of crude perceptIOn.'
page 68 15. This reference, as are all those to Con. Psych., IS to
Alexander, 'Foundations and Sketch-plan of a Cona-
tional Psychology.'
page 70 16. The reference is to a passage from page g of
Alexander, 'The Method of Metaphysics and the
Categories' wherein he says: 'I propose to say that the
mind is enjoyed and Its objects contemplated.'
page 76. 17. All three of these artlcles have been reprinted in
Bradley's Collected Essays, volume IT. For the reader's
convenience, therefore,l\1r Ehot's references have been
transposed to this more generally used and eaSIly
accessible volume.
page 76. 18. Collected Essays n, 366.
page 77. 19. Collected Essays n, S75.
1 7 ~
Notes
page 77. Collected Essays Il, 368.
page 77. Collected Essays Il, 370
page 79. The sense here reqUlres the omISSIOn of the enhre
thlrd line, and of the first word in the fourth hne as
well The sentence would then read:
'For internally, their relations among themselves are
determined only by the real world from the pomt of
view of the subject, and externally by the real world
from somebody else's point ofvlew ... .'
page 79. 24. Collected Essays Il, 368.
page 80. Collected Essays Il, 38Q.
page 80 Collected Essays Il, 385.
page 80. Collected Essays Il,
page 30. These sentences are not to be found m the artIcle
cited but, in this same artICle, Bradley does make a
statement closely similar to the one quoted It reads:
'There is in attention never more than one object, the
several "objects" being diverse aspects of' or features
Wlthin this.' Collected Essays Il, 431.
CHAPTER IV
page 94. 31. The sense here requires the insertion of the word
'not'. The sentence would then read,
'The distmction, consequently, between Ausdruck and
Bedeutung must not be drawn too closely.'
page 94. Russell, 'Meinong's Theory of Complexes and
Assumptions (Ill),' 515.
page 95. 33. Mr Eliot's meaning here is easily clarified if we
alter the passage to read:
'Now it may be asked whether a relation to its terms IS
apprehended as an object in the same way as is the
object, and whether in any complex there are not two
superiora-the relation uniting, and the whole complex.'
173
Notes
page 97. 34. Russell, 'Meinong's Theory of Complexes and
Assumptions (1),' 207.
page 97. 35. Meinong, Uber die Erfahrungsgrundlagen U l 1 ~ e r e 8
Wissens, 99-100.
page 99. 36 Russell, 'Meinong's Theory of Complexes and
AssumptiOns (H),' 352.
page 10S. S7. The reference is to Peirce, Collected Papers
Volume n, Book Il, Chapter 3, 'The Icon, Index, and
Symbol,' 156-73.
page 104. S8. Mr Eliot's meaning here is easIly clarified if we
alter the passage to read:
'It consequently tranSpIres that neither the word alone
is the object (for there is no word alone), nor the
logical meaning (which is an abstraction and cannot be
grasped without the word), nor the total of word and
meaning (for there is no tota1- word and meaning
being continuous, and the continuity not an object).'
page 107 39. The passage quoted is from pages 7-8 of Russell's
'On the RelatIOns of Gniversals and PartIculars' but
IS quoted in a slIghtly maccurate way It should read
as follows.
'If, on the other hand, we consider what may be called
"real" space, i.e. the inferred space containing the
"real" objects which we suppose to be the cause of our
perceptions, then we no longer know what is the nature
of the quahties, If any, which exist in this "real" space,
and it IS natural to replace the bundle of qualIties by a
collectlOn of pieces of matter havmg whatever charac-
tenshcs the SClence of the moment may prescrIbe.'
page 119 40. Bradley, Appearance and Reality, 170.
page 128. 41. The passage referred to m Bradley's The Principles
oj Logic, 115 reads as follows:
'Let us take such a denial as "Chimaeras are non-
existent". "Chimaera" IS here ostensibly the subject,
but is re;llly the predicate.'
page 133. 42. The sense requires the msertion of the word
174
Notes
'there' between 'dog' and 'is'. The sentence would then
read:
'[I]t is a question of interpretation whether in expres-
sion which is repeated at the approach of the same
object (as a cat may have a peculiar way of acting at
the approach of a dog), there is behaviour or language.'
CHAPTER VI
page 142. 43. Bradley, A ppearant-e and Reality, 229.
page 146. 44. Page 186 of the original typescript ends with this
dangling phrase. Page 187 then follows immediately
with the new paragraph beginning 'The doctrine of
fimte centres ... " and continues exactly as given here
on page 146. Some material, intervenmg between these
two paragraphs, has obviously been removed. The only
other difficulty of this same nature arises at the end of
the very last page of the presently existing typescript
where, again, the page ends WIth an mcompleted
sentence. In both cases, the argument being formu-
lated is identical with that which Mr Eliot goes on to
develop in his Monist articles - more especially the
second one entitled 'Leibniz' Monads and Bradley's
Finite Centres.'
page 148. 45. Bradley, Appearance and Reality, 464.
CHAPTER VII
page 156. 48. The sense here requires the insertion of the words
'we find'. The passage would then read:
'When we think what knowing really means in our
experience, we find how essentially relative its meaning
is, for it can never escape from the ultimate limits of its
own meaning ..... '
page 162. 49. The sense here requires the insertion of the words
'it dealt'. The passage would then read:
175
Notes
"[F]inally, it dealt with the difference between real
and unreal objects, and with the analysis of im-
aginary objects and assumptIOns.'
page 169. 50. The unfinished sentence 'For if all objectivity and
all knowledge is relative' with which the last page of
original typescript ends has been omitted here. See
Mr Eliot's Preface and Note 44.
176
APPENDIX I
The Development of
Leibniz' Monadism*
T
he study of Monadology may be comprised in three stages.
In the first we isolate the work, Wlth no other aid than the
philosophical counters which itself employs, we attempt
to draw its fantastic world around us and find it real. Perhaps we
supplement it by searching in other works of Leibmz for elucida-
tions of points which are not clear; but in any case we take the
Monadology as a creed and test our possibilities of behef. No
philosophy can be understood Wlthout this preliminary effort to
accept it on its own terms; but its true value can never be extracted
solely in that way. The perfected or the summarized form of any
system is the starting point, not the terminus of study. We must
effect a radical restatement, find m it motives and problems
which are ours, giving it the digmty of a place in the mstory of
science when we withdraw from it the sanctity of a relIgion. In
losing the consistency of a closed system, it gains the consistency
of reason, is attached to something larger than itself. Russell and
Couturat have accomplIshed this revaluation for Leibniz. But be-
side the leading motive, the reason of a philosophy, there are other
strata both below and above: prejudices, traditions, suggestions,
motives which imperfectly assimilate to the central motive, all
of which combine to give to the system the form which it has. The
present essay is merely a preface to the investigation of these forces.
There are influences of suggestion, influences of tradition, per-
sonal influences, and, moreover, there is more than one conscious
* Reprinted from TM Mom.tt XXVI (October 1916) 534-56. Translations have
been added for thIS edition.
M 177 E.K.E.
The Development oj Leibniz' M onadism
interest. Among influences of the first sort upon Leibmz (none of
them of the highest importance) I should class a variety of authors
whose contributions to Leibniz are more verbal than profound.
Leibniz' readmg was wide beyond any point of selection, and he
appears to have derived some entertainment from such philo-
sophers as Giordano Bruno, Maimonides, and the Averrhoists.*
Bruno is a classic example of influence in the most superficIal sense.
It is not certain, nor is it important, at what period Leibniz
became acquainted with Bruno's works. For the probability that
Leibniz was struck by the figurative language, that Bruno may
have been in the background when Leibniz wrote some of his more
imaginative passages, there is evidence enough. For the probabihty
that Bruno affected Leibniz' thought, there is no evidence what-
ever. What we have is a statement which bears strong superficial
resemblances to the statement of Leibniz, the arguments, such as
they are, the steps which lead up to the statement, are not
similar. Lelbniz' arguments are sufficiently strong not to demand
support from the fact that there were monadologists before
Leibniz. To his imagination we may concede plagiarISm But it IS
with the sources of his thought, not WIth the sources of h1s
imagery, that we are concerned.
The other sources mentioned may be dismissed m the same
way. It is interesting, perhaps, but not valuable, to observe that
Leibniz read with appreciation a book by Maimonides. And
though he never couples the names of Spinoza and Maimonides
together, the notes which he made upon thIs book single out just
the points of resemblance to the Theologico-politicus - the first
work of Spinoza that he read. He was interested in Hebrew and
Arabic studies. Bossuet sends to him for a translation of the
Talmud. He announces to Bossuet a translation of the Koran. A
dialogue of 1676 shows that he knew, through Maimonides, the
doctrines of the A verrhoists and of a certam Jewish sect, the
Motekallem. In 1687, while traveling in Bavana, he undertook
* For Bruno. see H. Brunnhofer: G. Brunos Lehre vom Kleinsten. For Mal-
momdes. see Foucher de Cared: Llnbniz, la philosophic ;U'V8; Rubm: Erkenntn'LS-
theoric_
178
The Development of Leibniz' Monadism
some study of the Kabbala, and perhaps noticed the theory of
emanation from an infinite being wInch consIsts m an indIvisible
pomt - and the microcosm is said to be a famIliar Idea in Jewish
philosophy. These studies, rather shallow it IS true, Illustrate
Leibmz' insatiable curiosity toward every sort of theological
hocus-pocus. Monadlsm was probably a satisfactiOn of this sIde of
LeIbniz' mind, as well as the outcome of rus logical and meta-
physical thought.
Of mfluences of suggestion, there is only one whlch may have
been of the first importance - the mfluence of Plato, to be
treated later. The main influences which directed Leibniz are of
three kinds. the scholastic Aristotelian tradition in which he was
brought up, the very early stimulus of a personal teacher toward
a mathematical conception of the umverse, and Leibniz' tem-
porary adhesion to atomlsm. HIS chief motives, more or less cor-
respondmg to this classification, were theologIcal, logical, and
physIcal.
Merz expresses the conventional opinion in saying that the De
principio individui 'bears testimony to the young author's ex-
tensive knowledge of scholastic learning as well as to IllS dexterity
in handlmg their dialectical methods.'* I am incompetent to
impugn the scholastic erudition of young Leibmz, but a perusal of
this document impels me to exclaim with Kabitz, 'as if the copious
citation of passages from scholastic compendia proved any
'"astonishmg" learning on the part of Leibniz, as If he could not
obtain these quotations just as well second-hand "** The treatise
IS very short and very dull. Two or three passages in it are often
quoted. 'Pono igitur: omne mdi'"lduum sua tota entitate in-
drviduatur' ;*** and 'Sed SI omnis intelledus creatus tolleretur,
illa relatlO perlret, et tamen res indlviduarentur, ergo tunc se
IpSIS. '**** The prmciple of mdividuatlOn is not mental, nor is it
" Merz, p. 15.
** Kabltz, Dze Ph,.losopitu desJungen Letbmz, p. 50.
"*,, 'I propose therefore that every IndiVidual thIng IS made mdlVldual by Its
own whole bemg .
**** 'But If every Intellect m creatIOn were taken away, that relatIonship would
perish; yet even so thmgs would be made IndiVidual, and therefore III that event
by themselves.'
179
negative. Though Leibmz documents this work with such names as
Occam, Scotus, Aquinas, Suarez, Molma, Zabarella, what the
thesis shows is not extent of learning or origmality of thought. It
shows that there was a certain body of mheritance which pomted
m a certam directIOn. It shows a scholastic pomt of view from
which Leibniz never really escaped, and whlCh he never wholly
rejected.* In the light of these quotatIOns IS to be mterpreted
not only monadism, but the materialIstic atomism whlCh for a
time engaged lus attention. At this early period, and indeed
throughout his life, there IS lIttle evidence of dlrect adaptatiOns
from Aristotle. But here as always one finds the acceptance of the
problem of substance, transmitted from Aristotle through the
form which the school had given it. In some ways diametrically in
opposition with Aristotle, thIS scholastic view of substance which
Leibniz held IS yet an Aristotelian inheritance. This point is of
capItal importance
It appears that LeIbniz abandoned his study of the philoso-
phers of the church when he felt called, at a very early age, "to
adopt the mechanical VIew of nature ... '** But there was
never a complete renuncIation, and Leibniz, who seldom spoke III
of a dead philosopher, always praises the schoolmen. The change
was a transition and not an apostasy. In 1663, at Jena, whIle pur-
suing his studIes m jUrisprudence, he fell under the influence of
WeIgel. Weigel was acquamted with the work of Copernicus,
Kepler, and Galileo. Kabitz says that "the fundamental concep-
tion of Leibmz' system accordmg to whlCh the universe is an
harmomc, mathematico-loglCal related whole ... became a firm
com>i.ction with Lelbniz through Welgel, before he was acquainted
wIth the work ofHobbes. '*** BIsterfeld ofLeyden IS anothermathe-
matician admired by LeIbmz in rus youth, and hIS mfluence is sup-
posed to be \>i.sible m the Arte Combinatoria. The idea of a harmony
* Nolen, QUld L Aristotell debuent, p. g7, quotes Lelbmz as follows: 'Mea
doctrma de sub5tanha composlta vldetur esse Ipsa doctrma scholae perlpatebcae
:SISl quod llle monada, non agnovlt.' ('My doctrme of substance seems to be
denved from the doctrme of substance of the perlpatebc school, except that the
latter was Ignorant of monads.')
** Merz, p. 15. *** Kabltz, op. Clt., p. I1g.
180
of a universe of individual substances IS present III other wntings
ofLeibniz' adolescence.
Leibmz' scholastic traming m metaphysics under Thomasius
was followed by that period in which, as he says, 'when I had
freed myself from the yoke of Anstotle [by which he means the
attenuated scholasticIsm of his day], I took to the vOld and the
atoms, for that is the VIew which best satisfies the imagination.'.j:
ThIs may have been about 1666.** It IS easy to see from the De
principio individui (written, according to rus own chronology,
when he had already fallen under the mfluence of Gassendl) that
this liberation was merely a development of extreme nommahsm
m the currents of his time. In 1676 he can still wnte, 'Ego magIs
magis que persuasus sum de corponbus msecabllibus .. simphcls-
sima esse debent ac promde sphaenca,' but goes on to say 'Nullus
enim locus est tam parvus qum fingi POSSIt esse m eo sphaeram
ipso minorem. Ponamus hoc Ita esse, nullus erit locus assignabllis
vacuus Et tamen Mundus erit plenus, unde intelhgItur quanti-
tatem massignabilem esse aliqmd.'*.j:* The atomIsm survives m
1676, although the vOld IS abandoned, and the mfluence of rus
mathematical work IS visible (thIs was just at the end ofthe penod
in Pans, when he was correspondmg with Newton tru'ough the
medium of Oldenburg) In thIS year occurred also hIS visit to
London and to the Hague.
In the next penod of hIS life, when he had for some years been
occupied chiefly with mathematical matters, falls the elaboration
of his argument agamst Descartes's theory of matter - Descartes,
who had been partly responsible for LeIbmz' tendency toward a
mechanical view. The unsatisfactory character of the VIews of
Descartes and of Gassendi had, It is true, been pointed out by
Leibniz several years before. In this later penod, besIdes physics
and pure mathematics, a third scientific interest may be noted. He
* Latta, p. 800. ** See Kabltz, p. 53
*** Couturat, 1903, p. 10. ('1 am more and more convmced about IndiVISible
parhcles ... they must be very Simple and therefore spherical For there IS no
place so small that It would be ImpOSSible to ImagIne In It a sphere smaller than
Itself. We therefore propose the follOWIng: no aSSignable place shall be empty.
And yet the Universe shall be full, from whIch It)S understood that an unasslgn-
able quantity 15 still somethmg. ')
181
refers often to Swammerdam, Leuwenhoek, and Malpighi, and it
is evident that he felt a genuine enthusiasm for the progress of
biology, aside from the support which certain theories lent to his
doctrine of preformation. But as his mterest in biology is ap-
parently subsequent to the observable beginnings of monadism,
these theories were rather a confirmatiOn than a stimulus.
To these phIlosophical and scientific occupatlOns must be joined
another which was no less important. Thls is hIs perfectly genume
passion for theology. Developed perhaps out of his early traming,
this theology, in a mmd which never lost an mterest it had once
taken up, remained a powerful influence throughout hIs life His
solicitude for the orthodoxy of hIS philosophy was not merely
policy or tlmidlty; rus theological dlsputations are not merely a
cover for logical problems. Leibniz' theological motive is respon-
SIble for much of the psychology of his monads, it took deep root
m hIs system, though not altogether without disturbance of the
soIl. The only two interpretatiOns of Leibmz which are of any
importance, that of Dillmann* and the superiOr interpretation of
Russell and Couturat, minillllze the significance of this motIve.
'Ma metaphysique est toute mathematlque, pour dll'e amSI, ou
la pourrOlt devenir,' Leibniz writes to the Marqms de l'H6pital
(Dec. ~ 7 , 1694). And Russell says m speaking oHhe subject-object
relation, 'the whole doctrine depends, throughout, upon this purely
logical tenet. '-1:* Strictly speaking, thIS assertion is perfectly
justified. For a historical account, it is insufficient. Leibniz puts
his problems into logical form, and often converts them slyly into
logical problems, but his prejudices are not always prejudices of
logic. The value of Leibniz' logic is to a certam extent separable
from the value of his philosophy. The view of the nature of sub-
stance with which he starts is due to a logical problem. But there
is no logical descent from pluralism to the view that the ego is sub-
stance. Leibniz' view of substance is derived from Aristotle, but
his theory of substance is dIfferent: it is ArIstotle's theory filtered
through scholasticism and tinctured by atomism and theology.
\Vhen we father the problem of substance upon Anstotle, we
'" NeU8 .Darsttllung der Letbnl:l;i8chen J[onadenlehre.
** Russell, p. 49.
1 8 ~
The Development of Leibniz' Jjfonadism
must remember that it was a problem which he never succeeded
in resolving, or pretended to have resolved. The chief mheritance
of modern philosophy from his doctrine is the proposition that
'substance is that which IS not predicated of a subject, but of
which all else is predicated' (Metaphysica Z 8--9). Aristotle
recognizes that there are vanous senses in which we may use the
term, and varIOUS substances besides the senslble substances,
which have matter. In one sense, the composite of form and matter
(e g, animals and plants) is substance; in another sense substance
IS 'the form by which the matter is some defimte thing' (1041b 8).
And agam the of which everythmg
IS predIcated. Matter certainly IS not substance, because matter has
neither limitnorthepotencyoflirmt by separation (see /:, 1017b 1-8).
And again the universal is more substantial than the particulars
15-15). \Vherever Aristotle pursues the concept of subs-
tance,it eludes hIm. These tentative definitlOns,assumed for dialetic
purposes, are abandoned in favour ofthat on 041 b:z7 - 51. This bears,
It IS true, very striking resemblances to the substance of Lelbniz As
to the meaning of form and the relation of formal to efficient and
final cause, Anstotle remains difficult and vague, while for Lelbniz
the formal and efficient causes in the case of substance are identical.
There is another and very serious difficulty 111 the theory of
Anstotle. From one of Aristotle's points of view only the 1l1-
dividual should be re:11, from the other only the specific. The form
IS always UTOfLOV (mdrl;isible), thought analyses and resynthesizes
its constituents to give the '\6yos TOiJ Tt 'i]v Etveu (the reason for a
thing being what it is). Of the subject, either the whole or a part
of the definition can be affirmed: thus we can define Socrates qna
man as 8[7TOVV '\oytK6v (a rational two-footed animal). But
predIcations of particular individuals belong to the attributive,
not to the definitory, type of judgment. In this type of judgment
the predicate affirmed, although it belongs to the subject, is not
a constituent of the subject's essential nature. As the essential
nature of Socrates is man, anything which is not contained in the
form of man in general will be attributive only and not definitory,
inasmuch as it might have been otherwise. For ArIstotle, not all
183
The Development of Leibniz' M onadism
predicates are contained m their subjects. Hence there can be no
defimtIon of mdividuals of a species (1039b 27-30). The substance
must be individual, in order to be the subject ;itmust bea 'this.' But
the -this' cannot be composed of umversals, because no number
of'suches' will constItute a 'this', and on the other hand it cannot
be composed of other substances. \Ve thus get two opposed views:
the substance is the form of the species, m which case It breaks
loose from the concrete thmg and gives nse to the same dlfficulbes
which Anstotle censured in Plato, or the substance IS the indi-
vidual thmg, m whICh case there is no defimtlOn and no know-
ledge. One view IS m harmony With Anstotle's methodology, the
other with his theory of elementary cognition *
Anstotle is here betrayed by hiS representatIOn theory - the
exact correspondence between constItuents of propositIOns and
constituents of thmgs; although in other contexts he is an
epistemological momst The same incoherence appears m his
account of the soul Is the substance the compound of matter
and form, or the form alone?
It was the AristotelIan problem of substance, affected by
scholastICism, that Leibmz took upon his shoulders at the be-
gmning of hiS career. Later m hfe he observes that he has been
re-reading Anstotle, and that he finds much of value in him. The
extent of hiS acquaintance With the text may be left m doubt. It is
probable that he had httle or no direct knowledge, that he aban-
doned the study of the history of philosophy almost altogether for
some years, and the fresh approach to Anstotle dId not produce
much effect upon his subsequent work. The interest lies m Leibniz'
saturatIOn which the Aristotelian tradition - Il1 spite of a mo-
mentary peevishness agamst the degenerate scholastIcism Il1
whICh he had been brought up - and m the compound to whlch
the contact of thiS training With the speculations of contemporary
science glVe rise. To this parbcular problem the drawing of paral-
lels and the estimating of borrowings - conscious and uncon-
* InAn. post Book II (Chap. XIX) lOOa 15-17 we are told how the knowledge of
the umversals arIses through experience ofparhculars. 'First prmclples' are arflved
at by mductIOn What IS not made clear IS the status of the parhculars after
SCientific knowledge 15 established.
184
The Development of Leibniz' 11fonadism
scious - is irrelevant. Nor are we here concerned with the ques-
tion whether 'this seemmgly fantastic system could be deduced
from a few simple premisses '* The question is the actual genesis
of the system. If, at the age of fifteen, Lelbniz mclined to the view
that substances are particular indivIduals and that relahons exist
only in the mind; if we can see that his transltion to atomic
materialism follows qUlte easily from thIs, if we find that his
further development depended upon the way in which his
sCIentific researches and hIs theologlcal prejud1ces -largely an
inheritance from his early training - played into each other; then
we shall conclude that his metaphysics and his sCIenhfic achieve-
ments - logical and mathematical - are two different values.
What is curIOus about Leibniz' mind is the existence of two
dlstinct currents. As a scientist he has a clear and consistent
development Every step is justified and coherent from this point
of view alone. His metaphyslcS is carefully bmlt upon h1s scientific
evolution. On the other side IS a strong devotion to theology. His
study of Descartes marks a stage m the development of both.
Descartes's theory of matter, and Descartes's theory of self-
consciousness both had their effect upon hIm And It is always
the same mmd working, clear and cold, the mmd of a doctor of the
church He is nearer to the Middle Ages, nearer to Greece, and
yet nearer to us, than are men hke Fichte and Begel.
We have seen that there is a very great difference between the
Aristotehan theory of substance and the nommalism deriving
from it with which Leibniz starts. Both m the llifetaphysica and in
the De anima, it is true, Aristotle leaves the answer somewhat am-
biguous. When he discusses the substance of organic beings we are
apt to think that each individual is a substance - that the form
of each body is an individual - one form for Socrates, and another
for Callias. It is difficult to avoid this conclusion, but in general,
for Aristotle as well as for Plato, whatever was merely individual
was perishable and incapable of being a subject of knowledge.
But if we say, with Burnet** that 'Plato found reality, whether in-
telligible or sensible, in the combination of matter and form and
* Russell, p. viii. ** Greek Phtlosophy. p. 331-2.
185
The Development oj Leibniz' Monadism
not in eIther separately,' and take the same view of Anstotle, yet
we cannot say that they found it in each indivIdual as a world
apart This IS an mstance of the dIfferences between Leibniz and
the Greeks. In Lelbniz we find the genesis of a psychological point
of view ; ideas tend to become particular mental facts, attributes of
particular substances. If the form or prmciple of Aristotle were
different m each man, thIs form would be Leibmz' soul. For the
Greek the human was the typically human, mdIvidual differences
were not of scientific mterest, for the modern philosopher in-
dIvIdual differences were of absorbmg Importance.
We may now trace the two currents whlCh are Imperfectly
united m the monad. Leibmz approaches the problem of substance
primarily as a physicIst. 'Leibmz does not begin wIth the problem,
what is the substance ofthe body, what is its origm, but from thIs.
how the prmciple of the body itself may be concelved.'* To those
readers - there are still a few - who know LeIbniz only through
the Monadology, the steps to the conclUSIOn will rem am unknown.
Unless we appreciate the ongmal question we shall be unable to
understand hIS solutIOn of the problem of body and soul, and of
the problem of our knowledge of external objects. He never asked
the questIOn, 'do phYSIcal bodIes exist?' but always, 'what IS the
principle which makes phYSIcal bodies intelligible?' The answer
IS found in hIS reaction to Cartesianism. And at thIS POUlt, whIle
the problem of energy was engaging his attention, he read some
of the dialogues of Plato, and was confirmed m hIS conclusions
especially by certain parts of the Sophist. What we get is on the
one hand an explanatIOn of the principle of matter, and on the
other an Idealistic metaphysic, largely influenced by Descartes,
based upon self-consciousness. The latter aspect has of course
been more exploited than the former.
Leibmz' account of physical matter IS a much more scientific,
but m some respects much cruder, explanation than Aristotle's.
For Aristotle's account is fundamentally a relatiVIstic one, i e ,
'matter' has various meanings in relation to shifting points of
view which form a series but are not themselves defined. There
* Dlllman. p. 68.
186
The Development qf Leibniz' Monadism
are meanings in various contexts, but no absolute meaning; and
the series of points of view, the series of contexts, has no absolute
meamng either. One misses the whole point of Aristotle's theory
if one regards matter as a 'thing'. It is - whether as pnmitive
matter, as the four elements, or as any compounds (I mean
uvvlNaELS' (syntheses, composltions) not (mixtures)) of any
degree of complexity formed out of these-one side of a contrast in
the mind (or imposed upon the mind) though this mind is no more
absolutely definable than matter Itself. (Hence Aristotle is
neither an idealist, m the modern sense, nor a pragmatlst.)
jl1ateria prima IS not simply negabve nor is it positIve in anyap-
prehensible way. It IS simply the furthest possIble extension of
meaning of a concept which has arisen out of practIcal complexes.
The next stage in the conception of matter, it will be recollected,
is that of a subject possessing two out of two paIrs of opposites
(wet-dry, hot-cold). The materia prima is not actual, because It has
no predIcates; the smallest number of predlcates whlCh an actual
existent can have is two. That is, whatever is merely hot, or merely
dry, is not a substance but is identical with the quality itself, but
whatever is hot and wet, or cold and dry, IS a substance different
from its predicates. These elements - the possible combinatlOns
of four qualities - are capable oftransmutation into one another
in a cycle which occurs in the exchange of qualities (the hot-dry
becomes hot-wet, the hot-wet becomes wet-cold, etc ). The third
stage of matter is that of the stable compounds of the four ele-
ments held together in various proportions. ThIs progress is not
a chemical theory in the modern sense, it is a series of points of
view. The formal cause is therefore identical with the thing itself,
and whether the form is there is a questIOn of what we regard as
the thing. The lump of marble is a awp6S' (plle, heap) of higher
compounds of the four elements - or it is a statue. One must
keep in mind the two apparently inconsistent propositions: (1)
there are no forms of individuals, * the form and the matter
compose one whole.
* Except of course eternal and umque mdlviduals, like the moon, which IS the
only mdlvldual of Its Species. And for later theology, the angels.
187
Aristotle is too keen a metaphysician to start from a naive view
of matter or from a one-sided spiritualism. To a certam extent
Leibniz keeps thIs middle ground too But his metaphysics tends
to fall apart, as the result of his inherited nominalism, and the
:fissure between his sCIentIfic and hIs theological mterests. Starting
as a physicIst, Leibmz naturally assumes that matter is not a rela-
tIve term but that It is (if It eXIsts at all, of which he has no doubt)
something absolute. The substantialIty of matter consIsts then
(after his defectIOn from Cartesiamsm) m the concept of force.
Force is not conceived as something behind matter, whIch could
be actual without matter But neither IS it a 'form' in quite the
ArIstotelian sense. The 'real and animated point' of the Systeme
nouveau IS from an ArIstotelian point of view merely another in-
dividual, or a form of an individual. It is purely and simply a
physical explanation. It mvolves no theory of knowledge, because
It does not take into account the point of view of an observer, It IS
a contrast not between matter and form, but between a particular
substance and its states.
Leibniz' distmction between materia prima and materia secunda
(of bodies) is superficially AristotelIan. But it is really only a dIS-
tinction between two ways in which matter may be considered for
the purposes of the physicist. It is a distinction of uses and not of
contexts. 'Matter' is not a relative term. The ancient distinction
between matter and form does not correspond to the modern dis-
tinction, since Descartes, of matter and spirit. And the dichotomy
is as strongly marked in Leibniz as in Descartes. His solution of the
difficulty marks the wide gulf that separates modern from ancient
prulosophy. For ArIstotle matter and form were always relative,
but never identical. For LeIbniz matter and spirit are absolute
reals, but are really (as for Spmoza) the same thing. The dIfference
for Leibniz is that between internal and external aspects. Materia
prima is not a stage, It is an external aspect, and even for physics
he finds this aspect msufficient. He is therefore led gradually into
a metaphysical conception. But from this metaphysical account
of the nature of the physical umverse to his doctrine of souls there
is really no legitimate inference.
188
The theory of forces, as the substances of which material
changes are the states, is not the theory of the soul which derIves
from his more theologICal interest. It is, as we have said, sImply an
analYSIS of the physical universe. Had Leibniz been quite consis-
tent he would have gone on to explain organic and conSCIOUS
actiVIty on a strictly phYSIcal baSIS. ThIS he did accomplish in
some measure HIs doctrine of expression * is an account of percep-
tIOn consistent with a purely physical and mathematical point of
view. But his transmigration** of human souls is muddled by the
identification of soul, in the sense of personality, with the ani-
mated pomt, of the core of feeling of the self WIth the force of
whICh It IS predicated. From his physical pomt of view he cannot
arrive at self-consciousness, so that hIS doctrme of force has two
grounds - the theory of dynamics and the feeling of activity. If
we refuse to consider self-consciousness a simple and single act, if
making an object of oneself merely means the detachment and
observation of particular states by other states, then the 'force'
slips out of our hands altogether. It remams 'internal', It is true,
in contrast with primary matter, but Its internality is not a
character of self-consciousness. And in tills event the whole theory
becomes completely naturalistIc. Something is the subject, but it
is not the I which I know, or which anybody knows. And there
then remams no reason why we should longer maintain a plurality
of subjects. Force becomes one. Against such a conclusion Leibniz
was set, (1) because It ceases to have any value for physics, and
(!2) because it interferes with our claim for personalllnmortahty.
Theology and physics join forces (so to speak) to rob metaphysics
of its due.
Hence two curious difficulties arise. An ammated force, a
monad, tends to become an ammated atom The monad exerts its
actiVIty at a point in space and time. Artefacts, as for Aristotle,
are merely groups of monads without a dominant monad. Organic
bodIeS are groups with a dominant monad. In the latter case, in
* See Letter to Arnauld, Oct. 6, 1687.
** Lelbmz of course exphCltly repudIates any 'transmigration' of monads. But
when he comes to the human soul Its adventures seem to be tantamount to thiS.
189
the case of a human being, in what sense is my body mine, since it
is also the bodIes of other monads? The dominant monad should be
the form of the body, mstead of which it bears a strong resemblance
to a larger or more powerful cell, and the soul would have to be
located, like Descartes's, in a particular place. Russell, m con-
trasting Leibmz' two conflictmg theories says of the second view.
in the other theory, mind and body together make one substance,
making a true unity. '01: So they ought to do. If the mind cannot
make the body into a unum per ae, instead of a mere aggregate,
the original physical theory has advanced to a point at which
mind and body fall apart. The second view appears to descend
from Aristotle. ** The :first appears to descend from atomlsm.
From neither philosophy does Leibniz ever shake himself quite
free.
There is, from the physical side, a sense in which the monad is
truly immortal. Force is indestructible, and will continue m
various manifestations. But force in this sense is entirely im-
personal. We cannot conceive of its persistence except by associa-
ting it with particular particles of matter. Leibniz is led by rus
difficultIes almost to the point of either denying the existence of
matter altogether, or else setting up a sort of matter which will be
something real besides monads.
The second objection is connected with the generatIOn and
destruction of life. For Aristotle some account of generatIon and
destruction is rendered possible by his provisional distinction
between efficient and formal causes. Anstotle was not embarrassed
by a behef in personal immortahty, and his philosophy confines
itself with faIr success to an exammation of the actual, the present
life. But Leibniz' force IS mdestructible m a dIfferent sense from
Anstotle's form. *** It persists in tIme as a particular eXIstence. The
monad which is myself must have previously existed; it must have
* p. 150.
** Lelbmz actually says (letter to Amauld. July 14, 1686): 'The soul IS never-
the form of the body.'
'" '" '" and Plato, I am Inclined to belIeve, owe theIr success m navIgatIng
bet" een the partIcular and the umversal, the concrete and the abstract, largely
to the fact that 'forms', 'speCIes', had to the Greek mmd not exactly the same
meanmg as for us. They" ere concrete WIthout beIng partIcular.
190
been one of the monads composing the body of father or mother.*
Thls theory has the disadvantages of practically denying the in-
dependence of mind from body and of separating monadhood
from selfhood. It substitutes biological behaviour for conscious
activity.
Commencing with an analysis of the nature of matter, Lelbniz
IS led to the view of a universe consisting of centres of force. From
this point of view the human soul is merely one of these forces, and
its activity should be reducible to physical laws. Under the m-
fluence of an Aristotelian doctrine of substance, he comes to
conclusions which are not at all Aristotelian, by his nominalistic
assumption that substances are particulars. From a matenalistic
atomism he is led to a spiritualistic atomism. In this he shows
again an important difference between the anCIent and the modern
world. It is illustrated in the prejudIce of ArIStotle against the
differences between individuals of the same species which he as-
crIbes to the perverse and unaccounhble influence of matter. To
the Greek, this variety of points of view would seem a positive
eVIl, as a theory of knowledge, it would seem a refuge of scepti-
cism; to Leibniz and the modern world, it enhances the interest
of life. And yet the view of Leibniz comes, via nominalism, out of
Aristotle himself.
From the point of view of physics we have a consistent explana-
tion whICh represents a great advance upon crude materIalism.
But it is drfficult to retain the separate forces unless we conceive
of matter as a positive principle of individuation. Not that the
doctrine of activIty and passivity is wholly unsatisfactory. >f.* Its
effect is to reduce causality to function. And but for the Aristo-
telian influence, it might possibly have done so. Instead of monads
we might then have had atomic particulars. But Leibniz some-
times confuses the mathematico-physical and the historical pomts
of view. It is true that the future of the monad should be theoreti-
* Russell. p. 154.
** There are imphcitly two views of activity and passivity. According to one,
causality IS a useful way of treating natural phenomena. Accordmg to the other,
there IS true activity in clear perception, true pasSIVity In confused. ThiS Illustrates
the mixture of motives.
191
cally predictable. But Leibniz leaves the basis of prediction uncer-
tain. Without recourse to mysticism, the reasons why a monad
should pass from the unconscious to the conscious state, why one
of the monads composing the body of father or mother should
suddenly be elected to domination over a new body of monads,
remain unsolved. We have seen that the notion of soul or spirit
is not to be reached by the theory of monads as an explanation of
the principle of matter. If it is part of Leibniz' inheritance we
may mquire just what Aristotle's view ofthe soul was.
I"eibniz' theory of soul IS, like that of Descartes, derived from
scholasticism. It is very remote from that of either Plato, Aristotle,
or Plotmus. For the Greeks, even for Plotinus, the soul is a sub-
stance in a sense which does not include personal immortality.
For Aristotle there is no continuity between the stages of soul,
between vegetable, animal, and human life. And the definition
of monads as points of view' IS, so far as I can see, entirely
modern.
For ArIstotle, accordmg to his own explicit statement, there is
no 'soul' in general. As the species of figure to figure in general,
so are the souls of vanous species of animal to soul' in general. *
In the higher grades of soul the same functIOns persist, but in a
form altered by the nature of the whole. The organs of different
species are related by analogy - as root is to plant, so mouth is to
animal, but mouth is not a development of root. The De anima
is not so much a psychological as a biological treatise. We find
in the animal the TPO#J (nourishment) and a{Jg'fJus (growth) of
the plant, but completely altered in the addition of a new faculty
- atu9T}u,s (perception). And these faculties are not sharp
dividing lines, but in the ascending scale are used more and more
loosely. ** The natural species are immutable, and the difference
does not consist in addition or subtraction offaculty.
There is a suggestion, but only a suggestion, of the doctrine of
ArIstotle in the three classes of monads. Even the lowest class of
De .d'IUma. Book 1I. 414b. 20 If
Cf. Book II, 413b, 12-13, 414a, 31 If; and Book Ill, 43l!a, 15 If. MotIon,
accordmg to 41Sb, 13. IS not a fourth Species of the soul besides 8petrn1COIl.
a,a.V01jTIKOIl (the principles of growth, perceptIon, and thought).

monad has appetition. * The second has feeling (sentiment) which
is something more than o.L'a81Ja,s(perception)and includes cpaVTQ.ata.
(imagination) and perhaps S,dvota. (thought). The soul of man
only has self-consciousness, a knowledge of eternal and necessary
truths - vovs (mind). It seems very probable that this scheme
was suggested by Aristotle** but there is a profound difference.
The classification of Aristotle is on the basis of biological func-
tions. These are functions of the organism as a whole, a complex
substance. Plants are not '00. (ammals), and have no ap-
petition. Aristotle makes much of the distmction between beings
which are attached to a single place and those which move about.
For Leibniz the distinction is not biological, but psychological,
and is everywhere a difference of degree. The lower monads, if
they had clearer perceptions, would rise in the scale. It IS not a.
limitation ofthe body, but a limitation ofthe nature of the monad
itself which establishes dlfferences. For Leibniz the serIes is a
continuum; for Aristotle it is not. For Leibniz desire charac-
terizes mmd; for Aristotle desire is always of the complex organ-
ism; the function of mind is solely the apprehension of the eternal
and necessary truths and principles.
There is anot.her point upon which Leibniz may have drawn his
inspiration from Aristotle, and that is the 'common sense', 'The
ideas which are said to come from more than one sense, like those
of space, figure, motion, rest, are rather from common sense, that
is from the mind itself, for they are ideas of the pure understand.
ing, but they are related to the external, and the senses make us
perceive them.'*** Leibniz' theory appears to be a transition be-
tween Aristotle and Kant. What Aristotle says is this: 'The above
[i.e., colour, sound, etc.] are called qualities which belong to the
respective senses; the perceptions common to all are motIon, rest,
number, figure, magnitude. These are not propria of any, but are
common to al1. ,**** Whereas Leibniz stuffs these KOWo. (common
qualities) into the mind, Aristotle goes no farther than to say
.. .lIonadology, 19.
** And, In passing. It seems possible that the theory of Lelbmz may have
supphed a hint for the romantic evolutlOnlsm of Diderot.
* .. * Russell, p. 163. ** .. * De A'Aima, Book n. 418a, 17 If.
N 193 E.K.E.
that they are perceived KaTd. aVf1-f3f3YJKOs (accidentally) by all the
senses. There IS not, as is sometimes thought, a 'common sense'
which apprehends them, as the eye perceives colour. * "What is
interestmg in the present context is the cautIous empiricism of
Aristotle's theory, contrasted with the more daring but less sound
speculations of Lelbniz.
The question of the relation of mind to matter is handled by
Lelbmz differently from either Aristotle or Spinoza. I am inclined
to thmk that it was conceived quite independently of Spinoza.
Lelbniz attacks Spinoza fiercely on the ground of Spinoza's
naturalism, and for his disbelief in free-will and immortality.**
He perceives, qUlte correctly, that Spinoza's view of the relahon
of mind and body leads to a matenalistic epiphenominalism.
"With Spinoza the reason does not possess ideas, it is an idea.'
He insists that the mind and the body are not the same thmg, any
more than the principle of action and the prmciple of passion
are the same thing. But he inclines to believe that the difference
between mind and matter is a difference of degree, that in all
created monads there is materiality. (There seems to be a relation
between materia prima of monads and materia prima of matter.)
Now tlllS suggests the Aristotelian relativity of matter and form;
for Aristotle the higher substances are more 'formed" the percen-
tage of crude matter seems to decrease. There is no matter and
no form in an absolute sense (except the form of God, who is rather
a disturbing factor). But whereas for Aristotle matter exists only in
contrast with form, and formed matter may be the matter for a
higher form, for Lelbniz matter really exists independently of
spirit, but is really spirit.
Leibniz' use of the term 'entelechy' is not identical with that of
Aristotle. The monad is called entelechy apparently because it is
complete in itself, complete in the sense of self-sufficient; while
the entelechy of Aristotle is the completion or actuality of some-
thing. In the De anima the soul is called the first entelechy of body.
* Zabarella, probably the greatest of all ArIstotelIan commentators, IS very
positIve on this pOlnt.
** See Foucher de Carel!: Re/utation inid2te de Sptnoza par Leibn';z.
194
To be strictly consistent, Aristotle should perhaps have held that
soul is the second entelechy, since he maintams that it is only
actual when it energizes; but he IS merely trying to distinguish
between the form and its operation. * Entelechy means that the
body would not be a human body vlithout the soul. It IS difficult,
it is true, not to think of the soul as something added to the body
(as to Galatea) or else to identify soul with the (hving) body. Soul
IS to body as cutting is to the axe; realizing itself in its actions,
and not completely real when abstracted from what it does. In
the light of ArIstotle's elaborate critique of earlier theOrIes of the
soul, ills view is seen as an attempt to get away from the abstrac-
tions of materialism or of spirItualism with which we begm. For
Aristotle reality is here and now; and the true nature of mmd is
found in the activity which it exercises. Attempt to analyse the
mind, as a thing, and it is nothing. It is an operation. Aristotle's
psychology therefore starts with psycho-physics, and ascends to
speculative reason. It is only then that we perceive what mmd is,
and in retrospect find that it was present in the simplest sensation.
The word entelechy as used by Leibmz loses the meanmg which
it had for Aristotle. It becomes figurative and unimportant. Lelb-
niz appears at first less a dichotomist than either Aristotle or
Descartes. In effect, the breach between mind and matter be-
comes far wider than in the system of Aristotle. In order that
mind may persist at all times as something distinct from the body,
appeal IS made to the subconscious, - a parallelism even more
mystifying than that of Spinoza. With Leibniz the relation of
mind and matter is closer, the relation of body and soul more re-
mote, than with Aristotle. The weakness in Leibniz' theory of
body and soul may be due to two causes. On the one hand his
theological bias made separation of body and soul essential; and
on the other hand it was necessary, for his more strictly pilllo-
sophical argument, that the monads should persist after the com-
pound substances, the bodies, which are their points of view. It
* See De aninw, Book n, 412a, '2B, where ov,'a!L" ' w ~ v EXOVTOS means having
'the potentialIty offundionmg', not 'the potentIalIty of soul'. The above dlstmction
between form and operatIon was pointed out by Zabarella.
195
is required both by his theory of substance, and by his demand for
a mathematical metaphysic. The causal series which is the monad
should apparently have no last term.* Perception (in Leibniz'
general statement of expression) requires that every series should
be similar both to every other series and to the series of series.**
The same theory which demands unconscious perception seems to
demand also a series which shaH not termmate in hme. Supposing
that the destruction of individual monads shall leave the total, as
an infinite number, undiminished, nevertheless the monad as a
substance will have to shut up shop, and we shall be left with a
number of relations relating nothing. Some sort of persistence is
necessary for the system, though not the personal immortality
which Leibniz is interested in supporting. It is evident that with
the possibIlity of changes of 'points of view' the meaning of pre-
diction becomes hopelessly attenuated. Every moment will see a
new universe. At every moment there will be a new series of series;
but continuity makes necessary a point of view from which there
shall be a permanent series of series of series.
Leibniz' theory of mind and matter, of body and soul, is in
some ways the subtlest that has ever been devised. Matter is an
arrested moment of mind, 'mind wlthout memory.'*** By state
is not meant feeling, but the monad at any instant of time. ***'"
In many ways it is superior to that of Aristotle. When he turns to
preformation, to the vinculum substantiale, to the immortality
of the soul, we feel a certain repulsion; for with an the
curious fables of the Timaeus or the Physics and Aristotle's
history of animals, we know that Aristotle and Plato were some-
how more secure, better balanced, and less superstitious than the
man who was in power of intellect their equal.
There are two other points in monadism which direct attention
to the Greeks. These are the theory of innate ideas and the theory
,. See Russell: 'Recent work on the philosophy of Leibniz,' Mind, Vol. XII
(1903) pp. 199-200 .
... See ibui., p. 199.
*** Quoted from Theoria motus abstracti, 1671 by Latta, p. 230 n. Compare the
Berghoman theory of matter as conscIOusness 'runnmg down'.
** ** Cf . only mdivIsible monads and theIr states are absolutely real.'
196
of substance as force expressed in the 'Sophist'. So far as the
question of indebtedness goes I think that the answer is dear
enough. The views whIch Leibniz held were urged upon him by
his own premIses. He undoubtedly read Plato at a time when his
own theory was not yet crystallized, but he cannot be said to have
borrowed. He may be given full credit for havmg restored to life
in a new form the doctrmes of Plato and Aristotle. The monad is a
reincarnation of the form which is the formal cause of Aristotle.
But it is also more and less. The outstandmg difference is that he
sets out from an investIgation of physical force, and his monads
tend to become atomic centres of force, particular existences.
Hence a tendency to psychologism, to maintain that ideas always
find their home in particular minds, that they have a psycho-
logical as well as a logical existence. Lelbniz on this side opened
the way for modern ldealism. To his anticipations of modern
logic of a school opposed to absolute idealism, it is unnecessary
for me to point. No philosophy contains more various possibilities
of development, no philosophy umtes more various influences.
That he did not always unite them successfully - that he never
quite reconciled modern physics, medieval theology, and Greek
substance - is not to be reproved when we consider the magnitude
of his task and the magnitude of his accomplishment.
197
APPENDIX II
Leibniz' Monads and Bradley's
Finite Centres*
N
o philosopher is more fantastic than Leibmz in presenta-
tion, few have been less intelligently interpreted. At first
sight, none is less satisfactory. Yet Leibniz remains to
the end disquieting and dangerous. He represents no one tradi-
tion, no one civihzation; he is allied to no social or literary
tendency; his thought cannot be summed up or placed. Spmoza
represents a definite emotional attitude; suggestive as he is, his
value can be rated. Descartes is a classic, and is dead. 'Candide'
is a classic: Voltaire was a wise man, and not dangerous. Rousseau
is not a classic, nor was he a wise man; he has proved an eternal
source of mischief and inspiration. Reviewing the strange
opinions, almost childIsh in naivete, of birth and death, of body
and soul, of the relation between vegetable and animal, of activity
and passivity - together with the pitiful efforts at orthodoxy
and the cautious ethics of tills German diplomat, together with
his extraordinary facihty of scientific insight, one is disconcerted at
the end. His orthodoxy is more alarming than others' revolution,
his fantastic guesses more enduring than others' rationahty.
Beside the work of Russell and of Couturat I have found only
one author of assistance m attempting to appreciate the thought
of Leibniz. In Bradley's Appearance and Reality I seemed to find
features strikingly similar to those of monadism. So that re-read-
ing Leibniz I cannot help thinking that he was the first to express,
perhaps half unconsciously, one of those fundamental varieties of
* ReprlDted from The .7tIonist LXVI (October 1916) 566-76. Translations have
been added for this edition.
198
Leibniz' Monads and Bradley's Finite Centres
view wluch recur as novelties. With hIs motives,
logical and otherwise, I am not here concerned. I only wish to
point out, and leave for consideration, certain analogIes.
That monadism begins with Leibniz I think WIll be conceded.
It is characteristic of the man that everything about rus monads,
except the one essential point which makes them his own, he
may have borrowed from an author with whom he was certainly
acquainted. Bruno's theory has everything in common with that
of Lelbniz except this one point. A kind of pre-established har-
mony, the continuity of animal and vegetable and of orgamc and
inorganic, the representation of the whole in the part, even the
words monadum monas (the monad of monads): these points of
identity one finds. * But the monad of Bruno has this dIfference:
it has windows. And it is just the impenetrability of the Leib-
nizian monads which constitutes their orIginality and which
seems to justify our finding a likeness between Leibniz and
Bradley. In any case, there is no philosopher with whom the pro-
blem of sources is less important than With Leibmz. The fact that
he could receive stimulation from such various sources and re-
main so independent of the thought of rus own tIme** mdIcates
both the robustness and the sensitiveness of gemus. He had
studIed Thomas, and probably with great care the 1.11etaph!Jsic$
and the De anima, but he was not an Aristotelian; he was probably
profoundly struck by the passage 80phiates e, but anyone
who has read his panegyric of the Phaedo""** will probably agree
that his praise is more the approval of posterity than the inter-
* See H. Brunnhofer, G. Bruoo's Lehre 1Jom Kklnst81l als als QIUIlle der
:pra8stabilurte71 1Jon Leilm1Z (LeJ.pSlc. 1890). pp. 59-63. for quotations,
e.g. from DB Triplwi Minimo: 'Deus est monadum monas' Also from Spaccio
della b88tia tnonfante: 'In ogm uomo, m Cla5Cuno mdlvlduo SI contempla un
mondo. un uruverso.' Brunnhofer even traces the window metaphor back to the
Song of Solomon: 'Prosplclens per fenestras.'
** At least he affirms his mdependence. In 1679 he writes to Malebranche
that. as when he began to meditate he was not imbued with Cartesian opInions.
he was led to 'entrer dans les choses par une autre porte et decouvrir de nouveaux
pays.' He is also mclmed to speak rather sbghtmgly of Spmoza See Wendt, Die
Ent'UYlCkelung der LewniziBcMn Monad81llehT6 bis:rum Jahre 1695 (Berhn, 1886).
The germs of monadlSm appear as early as 1663.
*** DilCOUTS8 on Metaphytrics, Chapter XXVI.
199
pretation of discipleship. Leibniz' originality is in direct, not in-
verse ratio to his erudition.
More than multiplicity of influences, perhaps the mUltiplicity
of motives and the very occasional reasons for some of Leibniz'
writings, make him a bewildering and sometimes ludicrous writer.
The complication of his interests in physics, his interests in logic,
and his equally genuine interest in theology, make his views a
jungle of apparent contradictions and irrelevancies. His theory of
physical energy, for example, leads to an unsound metaphysical
theory of activity, and his solicitude for the preservation of human
immortality leads to a view which is only an excrescence upon
monadlsm,* and which is in every way less valuable than
Aristotle's. Thus there are features of the theory wruch are in-
essential. When we confine our attention to the resemblances be-
tween Leibniz' and Bradley's views, we will find I think that they
cover everything essential. These are (1) complete isolation of
monads from each other; ( ~ ) sceptical theory of knowledge,
relativistic theory of space, time, and relations, a form of anti-
intellectualism in both writers; from which follows (S) the indes-
tructibility ofthe monads; (4) the important doctrine of 'expres-
sion'.** Certain distinctions of Bradley's, as the (relative) dis-
tinction between finite centres and selves, are also implicit in
Leibniz. The relation of soul and body, the possibility of pan-
psychism, the knowledge of soul by soul, are problems which come
to closely similar solutions in the two philosophies.
I suggest that from the 'pluralism' of Leibniz there is only a
step to the 'absolute zero' of Bradley, and that Bradley's Absolute
dissolves at a touch into its constituents.
In the first place, Leibniz' theory of degrees of perfection among
monads approximates to a theory of degrees of reality. Mr
Russell has pointed out how easy a step it would have been for
Leibniz to have made reality the subject of all predicates. The
world consists of simple substances and their states. The subject
,. It leads Leibmz almost to the admiSSIOn that persistence In the case of the
lower types of monad IS meamngless. Cf. Discourse, XXXIV.
** See Letter to Arnauld. Oct. 6,1687.
200
Leibniz' j1fonads and Bradley's Finite Centres
is never, even from a timeless point of view, merely equivalent to
the sum of its states; it is incapable of exhaustion by any addition
of predicates. The question with which Leibniz attempted to
cope in his first thesis, and the question which he was never able
satisfactorily to settle, was what makes a real subject, what the
principle of individuation is. Nowhere in the correspondence with
Arnauld do we find a trustworthy mark of differentiation between
substantial and accidental unities. If everything which can have
predicates, everything which can be an object of attention, is a
substance, the whole theory falls to the ground; but if this is not
the case, we shall either be obliged to make reality the subject of
all predicates, or we shall be forced to distinguish, as do some
idealists, between judgments and pseudo-judgments, and the
logical basis for monadism fails. If we cannot find by inspection
an obVIOUS and indubitable token of difference between the sub-
stantial and the accldental, we shall in the end find substantiality
only in reality itself; or, what comes to the same thing, we shall
find degrees of substantiality everywhere. In the latter case sub-
stance becomes relative to finite and changing points of view,
and in the end again we must seek refuge in the one substance, or
resign ourselves to find no refuge at all.
This omnipresence of substance, in degree, comes very near at
times to being Leibniz' true doctrine. 'One thing expresses an-
other, in my use of the term,' he says, 'when there is a constant
and regulated relation between what can be said of the one and
of the other .... Expression is common to all forms, and is a class
of which ordinary perception, animal feelIng, and intellectual
knowledge are species .... Now, such expression is found every-
where, because all substances sympathize with one another and
receive some proportional change corresponding to the slightest
motion in the whole universe'; and further in the same letter 'you
object that I admit substantial forms only in the case of animated
bodies - a position which I do not, however, remember to have
taken.'* We remark also that the lowest monads are in no very
significant sense persistent: '[T]he result from a moral or practical
* To Amauld, Oct. 6, 1687.
201
standpoint is the same as if we said that they perished in each
case, and we can indeed say it from the physical standpoint in the
same way that we say bodies perish in their dlssolution.'* The
permanence of these monads seems to assert itself in order to save
a theory.
There is mdeed a point of VIew, necessary even in the severest
monism, from which everything, so far as it is an object, so far as it
can be assigned predicates, is equally real. But if we recognize
the relativity of the point of view for wluch reality is merely the
fact of being an object from that point of view, then the only
criterion of reality will be completeness and cohesion. Suppose
that some ofthe objects from a point of view are not direct objects
(things), but other points of view, then there is no phenomenal
test of their reality, qua points of view. So far as we cannot treat
them as things, the only objective criterion of the reality will be
their perfection. In any system in which degrees of reality play a
part, reality may be defined in terms of value, and value in terms
of reality.
Leibniz does not succeed in establishing the reality of several
substances. On the other hand, just as Leibniz' pluralism is ulti-
mately based upon faith, so Bradley's universe, actual only in
finite centres, is only by an act of faith unified. Upon inspection,
it falls away into the isolated finite experiences out of which It is
put together. Like monads they aim at being one, each expanded
to completion, to the full reality latent within it, would be iden-
tical with the whole universe. But in so doing it would lose the
actuality, the here and now, which is essential to the small reality
which it actually achieves. The Absolute responds only to an im-
aginary demand of thought, and satisfies only an imaginary
demand of feeling. Pretending to be something which makes finite
centres cohere, it turns out to be merely the assertion that they do.
And this assertion is only true so far as we here and now find it to
be so.
It is as difficult for Bradley as for Leibniz to maintain that there
is any world at all, to find any objects for these mirrors to mirror.
* Discourse on Jfetaphyaic8, Chapter XXXIV.
202
Leibniz' .1Wonads and Bradley's Finite Centres
The world of both is ideal construction. The distinction between
'Ideal' and 'real' IS present to Leibniz as well as to Bradley. The
former's theory of space is, like the latter's, relatiVIstic, even
qualitative.* Relations are the work of the mind.** Time exists
only from finite pomts of view. Nothing IS real, except experience
present m finite centres. The world, for Bradley, is simply the
intending of a world by several souls or centres. 'The world is such
that we can make the same intellectual constructIOn. We c a n ~
more or less, set up a scheme, in which everyone has a place, a
system constant and orderly, and in which the relations appre-
hended by each percipient coinCIde .... Our inner worlds, I may
be told, are divided from each other, but the outer world of
experience is common to all; and it is by standing on this basis
that we are able to commumcate. Such a statement would be in-
correct. My external sensatIons are no less pnvate to myselfthan
are my thoughts or my feehngs. In either case my experience falls
within my own circle, a circle closed on the outside; and, WIth all
Its elements alike, every sphere is opaque to the others which sur-
round it. With regard to communicability, there is in fact not any
difference of kind, but only of degree .... [I]t is not true that our
physical experiences have unity, in any sense which is inapplicable
to the worlds we call internal. ... In brief, regarded as an exis-
tence which appears in a soul, the whole world for each is peculiar
and private to that soul. ... No experience can lie open to inspec-
tion from outside; no direct guarantee of identity is possible ....
The real identity of ideal content, by which all souls live and move,
cannot work in common save by the path of e}..i;ernal appear-
ance.'***
Perhaps this is only a statement of a usual idealistic position,
but never has it been put in a form so extreme. A writer to whose
words Mr Bradley would probably subscribe, Professor Bosanquet,
formulates the orthodox view: "[N]o phase in a particular con-
* See Appearance, p. 32; Letter to Arnauld. Apr!l30. 1687.
** 'And as regards space and tIme, Lelbmz always endeavoured to reduce them
to attrIbutes of the substances m them. Thus Lelbmz IS forced .. to the Kanhan
theory that relatlOns, though verItable, are the work of the mind.' Russell, p. 14.
*** Appearance, p. 304 if.
~ o s
sciousness is merely a phase of the apparent subject, but it is
always and essentially a member of a further whole of experience,
which passes through and unites the states of many conscious-
nesses .... * This view Mr Bradley also holds. But he more often
emphasizes the other aspect. Each finite centre is, 'while it lasts"
the whole world. The world of practice, the world of objects, is
constructed out of the ideal identities intended by various souls.
For Bradley, I take it, an object is a common intention of several
souls, cut out (as in a sense are the souls themselves) from im-
mediate experience. The genesis of the common world can only
be described by admitted fictions, since in the end there is no ques-
tion of its origm in time: on the one hand our experiences are
similar because they are of the same objects, and on the other hand
the objects are only 'intellectual constructions' out of various and
quite independent experiences. So, on the one hand, my experience
is in principle essentially public. My emotions may be better
understood by others than by myself; as my oculist knows my
eyes. And on the other hand everything, the whole world, is
private to myself. Internal and external are thus not adjectives
applied to different contents within the same world; they are
different points of view.
I will pass now to another consideration. Is the finite centre or
the soul the counterpart to the monad? It is very difficult to keep
the meanings of 'soul', 'finite centre" and 'self' quite distinct. All
are more or less provisional and relative. A self is an ideal and
largely a practical construction, one's own self as much as that of
others. My self "remains intimately one thing with that finite
centre within which my universe appears. Other selves on the
contrary are for me ideal objects ... .'** The self is a construction
in space and time. It is an object among others, a self among
others, and could not exist save in a common world. The soul (as
in the passage quoted at length) is almost the same as finite
centre. The soul, considered as finite centre,*** cannot be acted
* Principle of lruli'lnduality and Value, p. 815.
** Truth and Bealdy, p. 418.
*** 'A soul is a finite centre Viewed as an object exlstmg m time with a before
and after of Itself,' Ibid., p. 414.
~ 0 4
upon by other enhties, since a finite centre is a universe in itself.
'If you confine your attentIOn to the soul as a soul, then every
possible experience is no more than that which happens in and
to this soul. You have to do with psychical events whIch qualify
the soul, and in the end these events, so far as you are true to
your idea, are merely states of the soul. Such a conception is for
certain purposes legltimate and necessary ... .'* Change, accord-
ingly, cannot be due to any agency outside of these states them-
selves; it can only be, 'in every state of a substance, some element
or quality in virtue of which that state is not permanent, but tends
to pass into the next state. This element is what Leibniz means
by activity. ,**
The soul only differs from the finite centre in being considered
as something not identical with its states. The finite centre, so far
as I can pretend to understand it, is immediate experience. It is
not in hme, though we are more or less forced to think of it under
temporal conditions. 'It comes to itself as all the world and not as
one world among others. And it has properly no duratIon through
which it lasts. It can contain a lapse and a before and after, but
these are subordinate. ,*** The finite centre in a sense contains its
OVITIl past and future. 'It has, or it contains, a character, and on
that character its own past and future depend.'**** This is
more clearly the case with the soul. But it would be untrue to go
on and declare that the soul 'bears traces' of everything that
happens to it. It would be a mistake to go on, holding this view
of the soul, and distinguish between various grades of soul ac-
cording to faculty. This would be to confuse the soul which is a
whole world, to which nothing comes except as its own attribute
and adjective, With the soul which can be descrIbed by its way
of acting upon an environment. In this way Leibniz thrusts him-
self into a nest of difficulties. The concepts of centre, of soul, and
of self and personality must be kept distinct. The point of view
from which each soul is a world in itself must not be confused With
the point of view from which each soul is only the function of a
* lb%d., p. 415.
*** Truth anil Reality, p. 410
~ 0 5
** Russell, p. 45
**** lEnd., p. 411.
physical organism, a unity perhaps only partial, capable of altera-
tion, development, having a history and a structure, a beginning
and apparently an end. And yet these two souls are the same And
if the two points of view are irreconcilable, yet on the other hand
neither would exist without the other, and they melt into each
other by a process which we cannot grasp. If we msist upon
thmking of the soul as something wholly isolated, as merely a
substance with states, then it is hopeless to attempt to arrive at
the conception of other souls. For if there are other souls, we must
thmk of our own soul as more intlmately attached to its own body
than to the rest of its environment; we detach and idealize some
of its states. We thus pass to the point of view from which the
soul is the entelechy of its body. It is this transition from one point
of view to another which is known to Mr Bradley's readers as
transcendence. It is the failure to deal adequately with trans-
cendence, or even to recognize the true nature of the problem,
which makes Leibniz appear so fantastic, and puts him sometimes
to such awkward shifts.
Thus Leibniz, while he makes the soul the entelechy of the
body, is forced to have recourse to the theory of the dominant
monad. Now I contend that if one recognizes two points of view,
which are irreconcilable and yet melt into each other, this theory
is quite superfluous. It is really an attempt to preserve the reality
of the external world at the same time that it is denied, which is
perhaps the attempt of all pan-psychism: to substitute for two
concepts which have at least a relative validity in practice-
consciousness and matter - one which is less useful and conse-
quently less significant - animated matter. So far as my body is
merely an adjective of my soul, I suppose that it needs no outside
explanation; and so far as it possesses an mdependent reality, it IS
quite unnecessary to say that this is because it is compounded of
elements which are adjectives of other souls or monads. Leibniz
has here done no more than to add to the concepts of psychical
and physical a third and otiose concept.
The monad in fact combines, or attempts to combine, several
points of view in one. Because Leibniz tries to run these different
~ 0 6
aspects together, and at the same time refuses to recognize that
the independence and isolation of the monads is only a relative
and partial aspect, he lets himself in for the most unnecessary of
his mysteries - the pre-established harmony. Bradley turns the
Absolute to account for the same purpose. 'The one Absolute'
knows itself and realizes itself in and through finite centres. 'For
rejecting a higher experience,' Mr Bradley says, 'in which ap-
pearances are transformed, I can find no reason ... .'* But what
we do know is that we are able to pass from one point of VIew to
another, that we are compelled to do so, and that the different
aspects more or less hang together. For rejecting a higher ex-
perience there may be no reason. But that this higher experience
explains the lower is at least open to doubt.
Mr Bradley's monadism is in some ways a great advance beyond
Leibniz. Its technical excellence is impeccable. It unquestionably
presents clearness where in Leibniz we find confusion. I am not
sure that the ultimate puzzle is any more frankly faced, or that
divine intervention plays any smaller part. Mr Bradley is a much
more skilful, a much more finished philosopher than Leibniz. He
has the melancholy grace, the languid mastery, of the late product.
He has expounded one type of philosophy with such consummate
ability that it will probably not survive him. In Leibniz there are
possibilities. He has the permanence of the pre-Socratics, of all
imperfect things.
* Truth and p. 613.

Selected Bibliography
Only those books and articles to which Mr Eliot has made
reference are listed here and, wherever specific pagination is in-
volved, the editions cited are those which he used and those to
which the pagination of his references therefore applies. Inasmuch
as the 1893 edition of Bradley's Appearance and Reality and the
edition of Russell's The Problems of Philosophy which he
used are now both out of print, Mr Eliot's references to these two
volumes have been transposed to those of the 1946 and
editions, respectively. It is these two current editions which are
therefore listed below and to which Mr Eliot's references now
apply. Bradley's Collected Essays has been added to the Biblio-
graphy inasmuch as several of the essays to which Mr Eliot refers
may be found there, and because this volume is more readily
accessible than are the early issues of Jl.1ind in which the essays
originally appeared.
Anne C. Bolgan
Adams, George P. "Mind as Form and as Activity.' The Philo-
sophical Review XXII (1913)
Alexander, S. "Mental Activity in Willing and in Ideas.' Pro-
ceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series IX (1908-1909)
1--40.
---. "On Sensations and Images.' Proceedings of the Aris-
totelian Society New Series X (1909-1910) I-S5.
---. <Foundations and Sketch-plan of a Conational Psy-
chology.' The British Journal of Psychology IX (1911)

---. 'The Method of Metaphysics and the Categories.' .Mind
XXI
Bosanquet, Bernard. The Essentials of Logic. London: Macmillan
and Company, 1895.
208
Bosanquet, Bernard Logic, or the 21forphology oJ Knowledge. In
Two Volumes Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1911
---. The Principle oJ Individuality and Value. London:
Macnullan and Company Llmited, 19152.
Bradley, F. H. The Principles of Logic. London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, and Company, 1883.
---. Appearance and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946.
---. Essays on Truth and Reality. Oxford. Clarendon Press,
1914
---. Collected Essays. In Two Volumes. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1935.
---. 'Some Remarks on Memory and Inference' J.lfind VIII
(1899) 145-66.
---. 'A Defense of Phenomenalism in Psychology.' }rl1nd IX
(1900) Reprinted m Collected Essays II 364-86.
---. 'On Active Attention.' Mind XI (1902) 1-30. Reprinted
m Collected Essays II 408-43.
--. 'The Defimtion of WIll (I).' .Mind XI 437-69.
Reprinted m Collected Essays II 476-514.
--. 'The Definition of WIll (II).' .Mind XII (1903) 145-76
Reprmted in Collected Essays IT 515-51.
--. 'The Definition of Will (In).' .Mind XIII (1904) 1-;37.
Reprinted in Collected Essays IT 552-94.
---. 'On Floating Ideas and the Imaginary.' Mind XV (1906)
445-72 Reprinted m Essays on Truth and Reality 528-64.
Brunnhofer, Hermann. Giordano Bruno's Lel17'e 'Com Kleinsten
als die Quelle der Prastabilirten Harmonie von Leilmitz.
Leipzig. Rauert & Rocco, 1890.
Burnet, John. Greek Philosophy. London: Macmillan and Com-
pany, 1914.
Couturat, Louis. Opuscules etJragments imfdits de Lcibmz. Paris:
Alcan, 1903.
Dillmann, Eduard. Eine neue Darstellung der Leibnizischen
jlonadenlehre auJGrund der QueZlen Leipzig: Reisland, 1891.
Dumville, Benjamin. 'The Standpoint of Psychology.' Proceedings
of the Aristotelian Society New Series XI (1910-1911) 41-79.
o
E.K.E.
Foucher de Careil, Alexandre L. Rijutation inedite de Spinoza par
Leibniz. Paris: Librairie philosophique de Ladrange, 1854
---. Leibniz, la philosophie juive, et la cabale Paris: August
Durand,1861.
Gerber, Gustav. Die Sprache und das Erkennen. Berlin: R.
Gaertners Verlogsbuchbandlung, 1884.
HIcks, G. Dawes. 'The Relation of Subject and Object from the
Point of View of Psychological Development.' Proceedings oj
the Aristotelian Society New Series VIn (1907-1908) 160-
5214.
---. 'Mr. G. E. Moore on "The Subject-Matter of Psycho-
logy".' Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series X
(1909-1910) 52352-88.
Hoernle, R. F. Alfred. 'Image, Idea and Meaning.' Mind XVI
(1907) 70-100.
Hailer, Alois. Psychologie. Wien und Prag: F. Tempsky, 1897.
Holt, Edwin B. and Others. The New Realism: Cooperative Studies
in Philosophy. New York: The Macmillan Company, 19192.
James, vYilliam. Essays in Radical Empiricism London: Long-
mans, Green, and Company, 19192.
Jerusalem, vVilhelm. Die Urtheilsfunction. Wien und Leipzig:
Braumuller, 1895.
Joachim, Harold. The Nature of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1906.
---. 'Psychical Process.' Mind XVIII (1909) 65-83.
Joseph, H. W. B. 'The PsychologIcal Explanation of the Develop-
ment of the Perception of External Obj ects (I).' .lWind XIX
(1910) 305-21.
---. 'The Psychological Explanation of the Development of
the Perception of External Objects (H).' Mind XIX (1910)
457-69.
---. "The Psychological Explanation of the Development of the
Perception of External Objects (Ill). (Reply to Prof. Stout).'
Mind XX (1911) 161-80.
Kabitz, Willy. Die Philosophic des Jungen Leibniz. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter's Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1909.
210
Lelbniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. The Monadology and Other Philo-
sophical Writings. Translated with an Introduction and
Notes by Robert Latta. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898.
---. Discourse on Metaphysics Correspondence with Arnauld,
and Monadology. With an Introduction by Paul Janet and
Translated from the originals by George R. ::Vlontgomery.
Chicago. The Open Court Publishing Company, 1902
Levy-Bruhl, Lucien. Les Fonctions Mentales dans Les ,'Yocietes
Inferieures. Pans: A1can, 1910.
Lipps, Theodor. Vom Fl1hlen, WolZen und Denlcen: VersucA einer
Theorie des Willens. Zweite, vollig umgearbeitete Aufiage.
Heft 13 und 14 der Schriften der Gesellschaft fur psycho-
logisclw Forschung LeipzIg: Barth, 1907.
---. <Inhalt und Gegenstand, Psychologie und Logik.'
Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der
historischen Klasse der K. B. Alcademie der Wissenschaften
zu Munchen (1905) 511-669.
McTaggart, J. M. K Studies in the Hegelian Dialetic. Cam-
bridge: University Press, 1896.
Memong, Alexis. Uber die ErfahrungsgrundZagen unseres n;-;issens.
Heft 6 der A Mandlungen zur Didaktilc und Philosophie der
Naturwissenschaft. Herausgegeben von F. Poske in Berlin,
A. Hbfier in Prag und E. Grimsehl in Hamburg. Berlin:
Springer, 1906.
---. Uber Annahmen. Zweite, umgearbeitete Auflage. Leipzig:
Barth,1910.
Merz, John Theodore. Leibniz. London: WIlliam Blackwood and
Sons, 1884.
Messer, August. Einfuhrung in die Erkenntnistlworie. Band 118
der Philosophisehen Bibliothelc. Leipzig. Meiner, 1909.
Psychologie. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlogs-Anstalt,
1914.
Moore, G. E. 'The Nature of Judgement' 11Hnd VIII (1899) 1'76-
193.
---. 'The Subject-Matter of Psychology.' Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society :K"ew Series X (1909-1910) 36-6Q.
~ 1 1
Nettleship, Richard Lewis. Philosophical Lectures and Remains.
Edited, with a Biographical Sketch by A. C. Bradley and
G R. Benson. In Two Volumes. London. Macmlllan and
Company Limited, 1897.
Nolen, D. Quid Leibnizius Aristoteli debuerit. Paris: Germer
Balliere Blbhopola, 1875.
Nunn, T. Percy. 'Are Secondary Qualities Independent ofPercep-
tion?' Proceedings oJ the Aristotelian Society New Series X

Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers. Elght Volumes. Edlted
by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. (Volumes 7 and 8
edited by Arthur W. Burks.) Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 19S1-1958.
Prichard, H. A. Kant's Theory oJ Knowledge. Oxford' Clarendon
Press, 1909.
---,. 'A CriticIsm of the Psychologists' Treatment of Know-
ledge' Mind XVI (1907)
Ross, W. D. editor. The Works oJ Anstotle. Translated mto
English. Volume I Analytica Posteriora. Volume III De
Anima. Volume VIII Metaphysica. Oxford' Clarendon Press,
1908.
Rubin, Salomon. Die Erkenntnistheorie Maimons 'in ihrem
Verhaltnis zu Cartesius, Leibnitz, Hume und Kant. Band 7
der Berner Studien zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte.
Herausgegeben von Dr Ludwig Stein Bern: Steiger & Cie,
1897.
Russell, Bertrand. _4 Critical Exposition oJ the Plnlo80phy cif
Leibniz. Cambridge: Universlty Press, 1900.
---. The Problems oJ Philosophy. London: Oxford Umversity
Press,
---. 'Recent Work on the Philosophy of Leibniz.' Mind XII
(190S)
---. 'Meinong's Theory of Complexes and Assumptions (1),
CH), and (Ill).' Mind XIII (1904) S36-54, and 509-
respectively.
--. On Denoting.' Mind XIV (1905) 479-93.

Russell, Bertrand. "Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge
by Description.' Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New
Series XI (1910-1911) Not to be confused with the
essay of the same title in The Problems of Philosophy.
---. 'On the Relations of Universals and Particulars.' Pro-
ceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series XII (1911-

Slgwart, Christoph. Logic. In Two Volumes. Second EditlOn,
Revised and Enlarged. Translated by Helen Dendy. London:
Swan Sonnenschein and Company, 1895.
Stout, G. F. Analytic Psychology. In Two Volumes. London:
Swan Sonnenschein and Company, 1896.
---. A Manual of Psychology. London: Umverslty Corres-
pondence College Press, 1899.
---. 'Mr. Prichard's Criticism of Psychology.' Mind XVI
(1907) 236-4f3.
---. 'Are Presentations Mental or PhyslcaP A Reply to
Professor Alexander.' Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
New Series IX (1908-1909)
---. 'The Object of Thought and Real Being.' Proceedings of
the Aristotelian Society New Series XI (1910-1911)
--. 'Reply to Mr. Joseph.' 11,findXX (1911) 1-14.
Titchener, Edward Bradford. Lectures on the Elementary Psy-
chology of Feeling and Attention. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1908.
---. A Text-book of Psychology. In Two Parts. New York:
The Macmlllan Company, 1909.
\Yard, .Tames. 'Psychology.' Encyclopaedia Britannica. Eleventh
Edition XXII 547-604.
\Yendt, Emil. Die Entwickelung der Leibnizischen .Monadenlehre
bis zum Jakre 1695. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,
1886.
vVitasek, Stephan. Grundlinien der Psychologie. Leipzig: Meiner,
1908.
\Vodehouse, Belen. The Presentation of Realitz! Cambridge:
Umversity Press, 1910.

Adams, George P., 34
Alexander, S , 84, 58n, 65, 66, 67, 68,
69, 70, 84, 89
A nalyttc Psychology (Stout), 62
Analytica Posteriora (ArIstotle), 9,
184n
Appearance and Reality (Bradley), 15,
16,19,20,83,36,36n,87n,79,80,
87, 96n, 97n, lOOn, 103n, 109-10,
lI5n, 118, 119, 120, 140n, 141-2,
148, 146, 146n, 148, 149, 150, 151,
158, 164n, 198, 203, 203n
Aquinas, Thomas, 180, 199
Aristotle, 179-97, 199,200
A verrhoists, 178
Balzac, Honore de, 124n
Berkeley, BIShop, 68, 107
BIsterfeld of Leyden, 180
Bosanquet, Bernard, 84, 41, 42, 42n,
48n,44,47,144-5n, 153, 165n, 203
Bossuet, Jacques, 178
Bradley, F. H., 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18,28,
31, 32, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48,
56, 57, 58, 60, 67, 69, 76, 77, 80,
84, 86, 89, 98n, 119, 138, H6, 147,
198, 199, 200, 202, 208, 204, 205,
206, 207
British Journal of Psychology, 58n
Brunehhe, F., 141n
Brunnhofer, Herman, 178n, 199n
Bruno, GlOrdano, 178, 178n, 199
Burnet, John, IS5, I85n
Butler, Samuel, 164
Candide (VQltaire), 198
Copermcus, Nlcholaus, 180
Coutural;. Louis, 177, 181, 18In, 182,
198
Critical E:xposltum of tlte Ph,losophy of
Letlnnz, A (Russell), 182, 182n,
190, 19011, 191, 19ln, 193, 193n,
20311,205,205n
De Anima (ArIStotle), 185. 192, 192n,
193, 193n, 194, 195, 195n, 199
De Arte Combmoloria (Lelbmz), 180
'Defense of Phenomenahsm m Psycho-
logy, A' (Bradley), 76, 77, 80
'DefimtIon of \VIlI, The' (Bladley), 76,
80, BOn
D8 Prmclp10 Indivtdm (Lelbmz). IS1
Descartes, Rene. 181, IS5, 186, 188,
190, 192, 195, 198
Dlderot, Dems, 193n
Die Entwickelung der Leibnizischen
ltfonadenlehre bzs zum Jahre 1695
(Wendt),199n
DZ6 E1T.enntntstheorie ltfalmons in
zhrem Verhaltnis zuCart6sius, Le,b-
nztz Hume, und J{ant(Rubin), H8n
Die Phl10sophle des jungen Lelbniz
(Kabltz), 179n
Die Sprache und dM ErT.ennen
(Gel ber), 39
D16 U1 thezlsfunchon (Jerusalem), 38
DllIman, Eduard, 182, J82n, 186, 186n
Discourse on MetaphysIcs (Lelbniz),
199n, 200n,202, 202n
Dostoevsky, Fyodor, 124n
DumvIlle, BenJamm, 5Sn
Ems neU8 Darstellung der LeibnizlS-
chen ltfonadenlehre auf Grund der
Quellen (Dillman), 182, 182n, 186.
186n
Essays in RadICal Empiricism (James).
19,29
Essays on Trldh and Reality (Brad-
ley), 15, 21, :26, 27, 28, 31, 32n,
204,204n, 205.205n,207, 207n
Essentials of Logw (Bosanquet). 41,49,
43, 43n
Euckel1, Rudolph, 165
Flchte, J. G., 165
Foucher de Careil, Alexandre L., 178n,
194, 194n
'Foundations and Sketch-plan of a
Conational Psychology' (Alexan-
der), 68, 69, 70
9314
Index
France, Anatole, 141n
Galrlei, Gahleo, 180
Gassendl, PIerre, 181
Gerber, Gustav, 39n
Giordano Bruno's Lehre 'Vom Kleinsten
ala dM Quelle der Prastabdtrten
Harmome 'von L e ~ b m t z (Brunn-
hofer), 178n, 199n
Greek Phtlosophy (Burnet), 185, 185n
Hegel, G. W. F., 39, 185
Hicks, G. Dawes, 26n, 58n
Hobbes, Thomas, 52n, 180
Hoernle, R. F. Alfred,
48
Hofler. AIOls, 59
40n, 47,
Holt, Edwm B., 113, 118, 119, 120
HOPltal, MarqUIs de 1',182
'Image, Idea and Meanmg' (Hoernle),
40n
'Inhalt und Gegenstand' (LlppS), 58n,
71, 71n, 72, 72n
Ivanhoe, 37
James, WIllam, 19,29, 115, 116
Janet, PIerre, 115
Jerusalem, WUhelm, 38n
Joachlm, Harold, 9, 26n, 5Bn, 120n,
166n, 167n
Joseph, H. W. B., 34n, 5Sn, 82
Kabitz, WIlly, 179, 179n, 180, ISOn,
181, ISln
Kant, Immanuel, 33-4, 87, 97, 100,
106, 107, 108, 193
Kant's Theory of Knowledge (Prichard),
59n
Kepler, Johannes, ISO
'Knowledge by Acquamtance and
Knowledge by DescrlptlOn' (Rus-
sell), 105n
Lange, F. A , 116
Lectures on Elementary Psychology of
Feelmg and AttentIOn (Tltchener),
SI
Leibmz(Merz),179n,180n
Leibniz, la ph2losophie jU''I'It, et la
cabale (Foucher de Cared), 178n
Lea Fonctums Jlentalss dans les
Societes Infensures (Uvy-Bruhl),
105n
Leuwenhoek, Antomus van, 182
Levy-Bruhl, Luclen, 105n
LIPPS, Theodor, 34, 5Bn, 71, 72, 73,74,
116n
Locke, John, I05,107n
Logic (Sigwart), 46
Logic, or the Morphology of Knowledge
(Bosanquet), 42, 42n, 56
Maimomdes, Moses, 178
Malebranche, Nlcolas, 199n
Mallarme, Stephane, 76
Malplghl, Marcello, 182
llfanual of Psychology, .Lt (Stout), 59,
61,65
McTaggart, J. M. E., 157n
Memong, Alexls, 34, 5Sn, 87, 91, 92,
93, 94, 95, 97, 99, lOO, 104, 105,
107, lOS, lIS?, 122. 126, 127, 130
'Memong's Theory of Comple.xes and
AssumptlOns' (Russell), S7, 88, 95,
99
Merz, John Theodore, 179, I79n, ISOn
Messer, August, 58n, 69, 87
lWetaphysica (AnstotJe), 183, 184, 1S5,
199
':'!ethod of MetaphysIcs and the Cate-
gones, The' (AJe\.ander), 70
:blind, 26n, 32, 47, 58n, 64, 65, 70, 79,
SO,SOn,S2,87,9Sn, 126
Mohere, Jean BaptJste, INn
Molma, Ludo"deus, 180
Monadology (Lelbmz), 146, 177, 181.
lSln,lB6, 193, 193n
Moore, G. E., 26n, 29n, 40, 41, 4,7
Nature of Truth, The (Joachlm), 120n,
166n,167n
Nettleslup, RIchard Lewls, 105n, llSn
Kew Realism, The (Holt and others),
113, 118, 119
Newton, Isaac, lS1
Kolen, D., ISOn
K unn, T. Perey, SOn, 89
Lelbmz, G. W., 146,147,177-86, lS8-
203, 205, 206, 207. Correspond-
ence WIth Arnauld, 189n, 190, 200,
200n,201,201n,202,202n Ockham, WIlham of, 180
215
Index
'On Active Attenhon' (Bradley), 76,
80,80n,82
'On Denoting' (Russell), 1'16
'On Floatmg Ideas and the Imaginary'
(Bradley). 32, 56
'On Our Knowledge of ImmedIate
Experience' (Bradley), 15,45
'On Sensatlons and Images' (Alex-
ander), 66, 68
'On the Relations of Umvelsals and
Particulars' (Russell), 107n
Peirce, Charles Sannders, 103
Phaedo (Plato), 199
Lect'ures and Remains
(Nettleshlp), 105n, ll8n
Philosophwal Review, The, 34n
Plato, 101, 104, 179, 184, 185, 186,
190n, 192, 196, 197
Plotmns, 192
Presentat'lOn of Reahty, The (Wode-
house),74
Prichard, H. A., 58n, 59-60n, 62n, 64,
65
Prmc!ple of lndivtduality and Value,
The (Bosanquet), 34n, 144-5n,
203-4,204n
Princtple8 of Logic, The (Bradley), 43,
44,47,56,128n,153
Prmc1ples of Human Knowledge
(Berkeley),l07n
Problems of Ph'tiosophy, The (Russell),
41,101, 104n, 105, 106, 106n, 107,
107n, 108. 109, llO
Proceed1ngs of the Artiftotsltan Society,
26n, 58n, 65, 66, 70, 80n, 105n,
107n
Qutd L8tbniztu8 .Aristoteli debusrit
(Nolen),180n
'Recent Work on the PhIlosophy of
LClbmz' (Russell). 196n
de Splnoza par
(Foucher de Cared), 194,
194n
Rousseau, J. J.t 198
Rovce, Josiah, 10
Rubin, Salomon. 178n
Russell, Bertrand, 11, 29, 29n, 34, 41,
87,88,89,94,95,97,99, lOO, 101.
104, 105, 106, 106n, 107, 107n,
108, 109, 110, 112, 126, 127, 130,
177, 182, 1820, 190, 190n, 193,
193n, 196n, 198,203n,205n
Seotns, Duns, 180
Sharp, Beeky, 126
Slgwart, Chrlstoph, 46
'Some Remarks on Memory and In-
ference' (Bradley), 98n
Sophzst, The (Plato), 186, 199
Spencer, Herbert, lIO
Spmoza, Benedldus de, 178, 188, 194,
195,199n
Stendhal, 124n
Stout, G. F., 34, 58n, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65, 66, 67, 70
Studies m the Hegelwn ])ialectac
(MeTaggart), 157n
SUalez, F" 180
Swammerdam, Jan, l89
Systeme nouveau (Lelbmz), 188
Text-book of Psychology, .A (Tltchener),
51n,59
Thaekeray, Wllham Makeplece, 126
The%gwo-politzcU8 (Spmoza), 178
Theoria motus abstracti (Lelbmz),
196n
Tltchener, Edward Bradford, 51n, 59,
81
aber Annahrnen (Meinong). 93, 98n, 97,
126
aber dM Erfahrungsgrllndlagen un-
seres Wissens CMemong), 91, 92.
92n, 95, 96,96n, 97,97n
Vanity (Thackeray), 126
Voltaire, Fram;ois, 198
Vom Fuhlen, Wollen und Denken
(Lipps),116n
Ward, James, 65, 72
WeIgel, Erhard, 180
Wendt, Emil, 199n
Wllson, John Cook, 62n
Witasek, Stephan, 59, 63
'Vodehouse, Helen, 34, 59, 74
Zabarella, Jacope, 180, 194n, 195n
216

Thomas Stearns Eliot Knowledge and Experience in The Philosophy of F. H. Bradley 1964

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thomas Stearns Eliot Knowledge and Experience in The Philosophy of F. H. Bradley 1964

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thomas Stearns Eliot Knowledge and Experience in The Philosophy of F. H. Bradley 1964

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KNOWLEDGE AND E X P E R I E ~ C E

in the philosophy of F. H. Bradley

You might also like