Note 4, page 20.--Hinneberg: _Die Kultur der Gegenwart: Systematische Philosophie_. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907.
LECTURE II
Note 1, page 50.--The difference is that the bad parts of this finite are eternal and essential for absolutists, whereas pluralists may hope that they will eventually get sloughed off and become as if they had not been.
Note 2, page 51.--Quoted by W. Wallace: _Lectures and Essays_, Oxford, 1898, p. 560.
Note 3, page 51.--_Logic_, tr. Wallace, 1874, p. 181.
Note 4, page 52.--_Ibid._, p. 304.
Note 5, page 53.--_Contemporary Review_, December, 1907, vol. 92, p.
618.
Note 6, page 57.--_Metaphysic_, sec. 69 ff.
Note 7, page 62.--_The World and the Individual_, vol. i, pp. 131-132.
Note 8, page 67.--A good ill.u.s.tration of this is to be found in a controversy between Mr. Bradley and the present writer, in _Mind_ for 1893, Mr. Bradley contending (if I understood him rightly) that "resemblance" is an illegitimate category, because it admits of degrees, and that the only real relations in comparison are absolute ident.i.ty and absolute non-comparability.
Note 9, page 75.--_Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic_, p. 184.
Note 10, page 75.--_Appearance and Reality_, 1893, pp. 141-142.
Note 11, page 76.--Cf. _Elements of Metaphysics_, p. 88.
Note 12, page 77.--_Some Dogmas of Religion_, p. 184.
Note 13, page 80.--For a more detailed criticism of Mr. Bradley"s intellectualism, see Appendix A.
LECTURE III
Note 1, page 94.--Hegel, _Smaller Logic_, pp. 184-185.
Note 2, page 95.--Cf. Hegel"s fine vindication of this function of contradiction in his _Wissenschaft der Logik_, Bk. ii, sec. 1, chap, ii, C, Anmerkung 3.
Note 3, page 95--_Hegel_, in _Blackwood"s Philosophical Cla.s.sics_, p.
162.
Note 4, page 95--_Wissenschaft der Logik_, Bk. i, sec. 1, chap, ii, B, a.
Note 5, page 96--Wallace"s translation of the _Smaller Logic_, p. 128.
Note 6, page 101--Joachim, _The Nature of Truth_, Oxford, 1906, pp.
22, 178. The argument in case the belief should be doubted would be the higher synthetic idea: if two truths were possible, the duality of that possibility would itself be the one truth that would unite them.
Note 7, page 115.--_The World and the Individual_, vol. ii, pp. 385, 386, 409.
Note 8, page 116.--The best _un_inspired argument (again not ironical!) which I know is that in Miss M.W. Calkins"s excellent book, _The Persistent Problems of Philosophy_, Macmillan, 1902.
Note 9, page 117.--Cf. Dr. Fuller"s excellent article," Ethical monism and the problem of evil," in the _Harvard Journal of Theology_, vol.
i, No. 2, April, 1908.
Note 10, page 120.--_Metaphysic_, sec. 79.
Note 11, page 121.--_Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic_, secs. 150, 153.
Note 12, page 121.--_The Nature of Truth_, 1906, pp. 170-171.
Note 13, page 121.--_Ibid._, p. 179.
Note 14, page 123.--The psychological a.n.a.logy that certain finite tracts of consciousness are composed of isolable parts added together, cannot be used by absolutists as proof that such parts are essential elements of all consciousness. Other finite fields of consciousness seem in point of fact not to be similarly resolvable into isolable parts.
Note 15, page 128.--Judging by the a.n.a.logy of the relation which our central consciousness seems to bear to that of our spinal cord, lower ganglia, etc., it would seem natural to suppose that in whatever superhuman mental synthesis there may be, the neglect and elimination of certain contents of which we are conscious on the human level might be as characteristic a feature as is the combination and interweaving of other human contents.
LECTURE IV
Note 1, page 143.--_The Spirit of Modern Philosophy_, p. 227.
Note 2, page 165.--Fechner: _uber die Seelenfrage_, 1861, p. 170.
Note 3, page 168.--Fechner"s latest summarizing of his views, _Die Tagesansicht gegenuber der Nachtansicht_, Leipzig, 1879, is now, I understand, in process of translation. His _Little Book of Life after Death_ exists already in two American versions, one published by Little, Brown & Co., Boston, the other by the Open Court Co., Chicago.
Note 4, page 176.--Mr. Bradley ought to be to some degree exempted from my attack in these last pages. Compare especially what he says of non-human consciousness in his _Appearance and Reality_, pp. 269-272.
LECTURE V
Note 1, page 182.--Royce: _The Spirit of Modern Philosophy_, p. 379.
Note 2, page 184.--_The World and the Individual_, vol. ii, pp. 58-62.
Note 3, page 190.--I hold to it still as the best description of an enormous number of our higher fields of consciousness. They demonstrably do not _contain_ the lower states that know the same objects. Of other fields, however this is not so true; so, in the _Psychological Review_ for 1895, vol. ii, p. 105 (see especially pp.
119-120), I frankly withdrew, in principle, my former objection to talking of fields of consciousness being made of simpler "parts,"
leaving the facts to decide the question in each special case.
Note 4, page 194.--I abstract from the consciousness attached to the whole itself, if such consciousness be there.
LECTURE VI
Note 1, page 250.--For a more explicit vindication of the notion of activity, see Appendix B, where I try to defend its recognition as a definite form of immediate experience against its rationalistic critics.
I subjoin here a few remarks destined to disarm some possible critics of Professor Bergson, who, to defend himself against misunderstandings of his meaning, ought to amplify and more fully explain his statement that concepts have a practical but not a theoretical use. Understood in one way, the thesis sounds indefensible, for by concepts we certainly increase our knowledge about things, and that seems a theoretical achievement, whatever practical achievements may follow in its train. Indeed, M. Bergson might seem to be easily refutable out of his own mouth. His philosophy pretends, if anything, to give a better insight into truth than rationalistic philosophies give: yet what is it in itself if not a conceptual system? Does its author not reason by concepts exclusively in his very attempt to show that they can give no insight?