What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
absolute abstract action activity Agnosticism Alcan analysis appear Aristotle believe Columbia University complete conception consciousness corresponding criticism definition Descartes determined discussion distinction doctrine elements emphases empiricism ence epistemology esthetic ethics evolution existence experience explain extensive quantity fact feeling field of attention function functional psychology G. E. Moore given Hegel Herbert Spencer human ical idea ideal images individual influence interest interpretation Journal Kant knowledge logic matter meaning mechanical ment mental metaphysical mind monism moral movement nature nervous system neururgic object organic panpsychist perception phenomena philosophy physical position possible practical pragmatism present principle problem Professor psychic pure question reality reason reference regard relation religion Review scholasticism Scientific Methods seems sensation sense social specious present Spencer teleological theory things thought tion transcendent true truth unity University validity whole words
Page 421 - To attain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve — what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare.
Page 370 - One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the flimsiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different.
Page 481 - subjective" we say that the experience represents; as "objective" it is represented. What represents and what is represented is here numerically the same; but we must remember that no dualism of being represented and representing resides in the experience per se. In its pure state, or when isolated, there is no self-splitting of it into consciousness and what the consciousness is "of.
Page 476 - My thesis is that if we start with the supposition that there is only one primal stuff or material in the world, a stuff of which everything is composed, and if we call that stuff "pure experience...
Page 485 - I account for all such facts by calling this whole train of experiences unreal, a mental train. Mental fire is what won't burn real sticks; mental water is what won't necessarily (though of course it may) put out even a mental fire. Mental knives may be sharp, but they won't cut real wood. Mental triangles are pointed, but their points won't wound. With 'real...
Page 481 - ... of.' Its subjectivity and objectivity are functional attributes solely, realized only when the experience is 'taken,' ie, talked-of , twice, considered along with its two differing contexts respectively, by a new retrospective experience, of which that whole past complication now forms the fresh content. The instant field of the present is at all tunes what I call the 'pure
Page 421 - How to make Our Ideas Clear," in the "Popular Science Monthly" for January of that year Mr. Peirce, after pointing out that our beliefs are really rules for action, said that, to develop a thought's meaning, we need only determine what conduct it is fitted to produce: that conduct is for us its sole significance.
Page 485 - ... under the name of the physical world. Of this our perceptual experiences are the nucleus, they being the originally strong experiences. We add a lot of conceptual experiences to them, making these strong also in imagination, and building out the remoter parts of the physical world by their means; and around this core of reality the world of laxly connected fancies and mere rhapsodical objects floats like a bank of clouds.
Page 475 - consciousness," when once it has evaporated to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of disappearing altogether. It is the name of a nonentity, and has no right to a place among first principles. Those who still cling to it are clinging to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the disappearing "soul
Page 476 - I mean only to deny that the word stands for an entity, but to insist most emphatically that it does stand for a function. There is, I mean, no aboriginal stuff or quality of being, contrasted with that of which material objects are made, out of which our thoughts of them are made...