Realism as a

CHAPTER XII

A REALISTIC THEORY OF MIND

I. INTRODUCTORY

§ 1. REALISM has thus far appeared in these pages mainly as a polemic. This polemic may conveniently be summarized in terms of the general errors of which it Polemic finds rival tendencies to be guilty.' 'Argument from the ego-centric predicament,' that is, from the circumstantial presence of the knower in all cases of things known, is peculiar to idealism. 'Definition by initial predication,' the assumption of the priority of a familiar or accidental relationship, is based on the more fundamental error of 'exclusive particularity,' or the supposition that an identical term can figure in only one relationship. These two errors together appear in all exclusive philosophies, such as dualism, and monisms of matter or mind. The error of 'pseudo-simplicity,' which amounts virtually to the abandonment of analysis, and the notion of 'indefinite potentiality,' which is the sequel to the last, are characteristic of 'substance' philosophies, and especially of all forms of 'activism,' whether naturalistic, idealistic, or pragmatistic. The 'speculative dogma,' the assumption of an all-general, all-sufficient first principle, is the primary motive in 'absolutism.' Finally, the error of 'verbal suggestion,' or 'equivocation,' is the means through which the real fruitlessness of the other errors may be concealed, and the philosophy

1 The full statement of these errors will be found above, especially pp. 64-68, 126-132, 169-171.

employing them given a meretricious plausibility and popular vogue.

As has already appeared, realism is nevertheless in agreement with naturalism, idealism, and pragmatism respecting many important doctrines. With naturalism, for example, it maintains the unimpeachable truth of the accredited results of science, and the independence of physical nature on knowledge; with idealism it maintains the validity and irreducibility of logical and moral science; and with pragmatism, the practical and empirical character of the knowledge process, and the presumptively pluralistic constitution of the universe.

A new movement invariably arises as a protest against tradition, and bases its hope of constructive achievement on the correction of certain established habits of thought. Realism is as yet in a phase in which this critical motive dominates and affords the best promise of initial agreement. But war has developed a class consciousness, and the time is near at hand, if, indeed, it has not already arrived, when one realist may recognize another. This dawning spirit of fellowship, accompanied as it is by a desire for a better understanding and a more effective coöperation,' justifies an attempt to summarize the central doctrines of a constructive realistic philosophy.

Fundamental Importance of the Problem of Mind

§ 2. The crucial problem for contemporary philosophy is the problem of knowledge. It is upon this question that its chief tendencies divide, and it is from their several solutions of this problem that these tendencies derive their characteristic interpretations of life. In giving a brief outline of a realistic philosophy, I shall therefore have to do mainly with the realistic theory of knowledge. I propose, how

1 Cf. "The Program and First Platform of Six Realists," by E. B. Holt, W. T. Marvin, W. P. Montague, R. B. Perry, W. B. Pitkin, and E. G. Spaulding, Jour. of Phil., Psych., and Scientific Methods, Vol. VII, 1910; and the volume entitled The New Realism, by the same writers. Cf. also the author's "Realism as a Polemic and Program of Reform," Jour. of Phil., Psych., and Scientific Methods, Vol. VII, 1910.

ever, to adopt a somewhat novel order of procedure. The problem of knowledge reduces, in the last analysis, to the problem of the relation between a mind and that which is related to a mind as its object. The constant feature of this relationship is mind. Instead, therefore, of dealing first with knowledge, leaving mind to be defined only incidentally or not at all, I propose first to discover what manner of thing mind is, in order that we may profit by such a discovery in our study of knowledge.1

Accounts of mind differ characteristically according as they are based on the observation of mind in nature and society, or on introspection. What is said of mind by historians, sociologists, comparative psychologists, and, among technical philosophers, most notably by Plato and Aristotle, is based mainly or wholly on general observation. Mind lies in the open field of experience, having its own typical form and mode of action, but, so far as knowledge of it is concerned, as generally accessible, as free to all comers, as the motions of stars or the civilization of cities. On the other hand, what is said of mind by religious teachers, by human psychologists of the modern school, whether rational or empirical, and, among technical philosophers, by such writers as St. Augustine, Descartes, and Berkeley, is based on self-consciousness. The investigator generalizes the nature of mind from an exclusive examination of his

own.

The results of these two modes of inquiry differ so strikingly as to appear almost irrelevant, and it is commonly argued that it cannot be mind that is directly apprehended in both cases. It is assumed, furthermore, that one's own mind, or the mind at home, must be preferred as more genuine than the mind abroad. The conclusion follows that the

1 Cf. my article "A Division of the Problem of Epistemology," Jour. of Phil., Psych., and Scientific Methods, Vol. VI, 1909. The remainder of the present chapter is reprinted in part from a series of articles entitled "The Hiddenness of Mind," "The Mind's Familiarity with Itself," and "The Mind Within and the Mind Without," Journal of Phil., Psych., and Scientific Methods, Vol. VI, 1909, Nos. 2, 5, 7.

latter is not mind at all, but a mere exterior of mind, serving only as a ground for inference. Thus we reach the widely popular view that mind is encased in a non-mental and impenetrable shell, within which it may cherish the secret of its own essence without ever being disturbed by inquisitive intruders. Now one might easily ask embarrassing questions. It is curious that if its exterior is impenetrable a mind should give such marked evidence of itself as to permit the safest inferences as to its presence within. It is curious, too, that such an inward mind should forever be making sallies into the neighborhood without being caught or followed back into its retreat. It must evidently be supplied with means of egress that bar ingress, with orifices of outlook that are closed to one who seeks to look in. But rather than urge these difficulties, I shall attempt to obviate them. This is possible only through a version of the two minds, the mind within and the mind without, that shall prove them to be in reality one. To unite them it is necessary to replace them by the whole mind, in which they appear plainly as parts. The traditional shield looks concave on one side and convex on the other. That this should be so is entirely intelligible in view of the nature of the entire shield and the several ways in which it may be approached. The whole shield may be known from either side when the initial bias is overcome. Similarly, I propose to describe the mind within and the mind without as parts of mind, either of which may assume prominence according to the cognitive starting-point; the whole mind by implication lying in the general field of experience where every initial one-sidedness may be

overcome.

In addition to this difference of method, there is another distinction that it will prove not only convenient to employ, but important to emphasize-the distinction between the action and the content of consciousness. Every type of consciousness exhibits this duality. There is 'thinking' and 'thought,' 'perceiving' and 'percept,' 'remembering'