Philosophical Studies (Hardcover)

PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Those of the papers in this volume, which have been previously published originally appeared as follows I. The Refutation of Idealism in Mind, N. S. Vol. xii, 1903. II. The Nature and Reality of Objects of Perception in Pro ceedings oj the Aristotelian Society, 1905-6. III. Professor James Pragmatism in Proceedings of the Aris totelian Society, 1907-8. IV. Humes Philosophy in The New Quarterly, November, 1909. V. The Status of Sense-Data in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1913-14. VI. The Conception of Reality in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1917-18. VII. Some Judgments of Perception in Proceedings of the Aris totelian Society 1918-19. IX. External and Internal Relations in Proceedings of the ArisL telian Society, 1919-20. PREFACE ALL the papers contained in this volume, except the two ethical ones VIII and X, have been previously published and of tho e which have been previously published all, except that on External and Internal Relations IX, are here re-printed without change. They were written at various dates between 1903 and 1921, and all are here printed in the order in which they were written, except that VIII on The Conception of Intrinsic Value, which was written earlier than VI and VII, has been moved out of its proper place in order to bring it nearer to IX and X, to both of which it is closely related in subject. All, except IV and X, were primarily intended for an audience familiar with the writings of philosophers but I hope that they may nevertheless prove intelligible even to those who have read little or no philosophy, since I make little use of technical terms, and, where I have clone so, have done my best to explain inordinary language exactly what I mean by them. The tone of X is . somewhat different from that of the res I, because it was written as a lecture for the Leicester J liilossphical Society, with regard to which I was informed that I must not assume any previous acquaintance with philosophy in most of the audience. It according bears marks throughout of the kind of audience for which it was intended. An attentive reader will easily discover that some of the views expressed in some of the papers are inconsistent with views expressed in others. The fact is that some of the views expressed in some of the earlier ones are views with which I no longer agree and I feel that some apology is needed for nevertheless republishing them exactly as they stood. In all cases, except one, my excuse is that the mistaken views in question are so embedded in the form and substance of the papers in which they occur, that it would have been impossible to correct them without practically substituting new papers for the old ones and that, in spite of these mistakes, the old papers, as they stand, still seem to me, on the whole, to say things which are worth saying in a form which, however defective it may viii Preface be, I doubt my own ability to improve upon. The only case in which I doubt whether this excuse applies is that of the first paper The Refutation of Idealism. This paper now appears to me to be very confused, as well as to embody a good many down-right mistakes so I am doubtful whether I ought tohave included it. But in this case I have another excuse namely that it is a paper to which a good many allusions have been made by contemporary writers on philosophy and I was told that, for some readers atall events, it would be a convenience that it should be reprinted along with the rest, if only for the sake of reference. I said above that the only one of the previously published papers, in which changes have been made, is IX on External and Internal Relations...