With the affectional experiences which we are considering, the relatively "pure" condition lasts. In practical life no urgent need has yet arisen for deciding whether to treat them as rigorously mental or as rigorously physical facts. So they remain equivocal; and, as the world goes, their equivocality is one of their great conveniences.
The shifting place of "secondary qualities" in the history of philosophy[80] is another excellent proof of the fact that "inner" and "outer" are not coefficients with which experiences come to us aboriginally stamped, but are rather results of a later cla.s.sification performed by us for particular needs. The common-sense stage of thought is a perfectly definite practical halting-place, the place where we ourselves can proceed to act unhesitatingly. On this stage of thought things act on each other as well as on us by means of their secondary qualities. Sound, as such, goes through the air and can be intercepted.
The heat of the fire pa.s.ses over, as such, into the water which it sets a-boiling. It is the very light of the arc-lamp which displaces the darkness of the midnight street, etc. By engendering and translocating just these qualities, actively efficacious as they seem to be, we ourselves succeed in altering nature so as to suit us; and until more purely intellectual, as distinguished from practical, needs had arisen, no one ever thought of calling these qualities subjective. When, however, Galileo, Descartes, and others found it best for philosophic purposes to cla.s.s sound, heat, and light along with pain and pleasure as purely mental phenomena, they could do so with impunity.[81]
Even the primary qualities are undergoing the same fate. Hardness and softness are effects on us of atomic interactions, and the atoms themselves are neither hard nor soft, nor solid nor liquid. Size and shape are deemed subjective by Kantians; time itself is subjective according to many philosophers;[82] and even the activity and causal efficacy which lingered in physics long after secondary qualities were banished are now treated as illusory projections outwards of phenomena of our own consciousness. There are no activities or effects in nature, for the most intellectual contemporary school of physical speculation.
Nature exhibits only _changes_, which habitually coincide with one another so that their habits are describable in simple "laws."[83]
There is no original spirituality or materiality of being, intuitively discerned, then; but only a translocation of experiences from one world to another; a grouping of them with one set or another of a.s.sociates for definitely practical or intellectual ends.
I will say nothing here of the persistent ambiguity of _relations_. They are undeniable parts of pure experience; yet, while common sense and what I call radical empiricism stand for their being objective, both rationalism and the usual empiricism claim that they are exclusively the "work of the mind"--the finite mind or the absolute mind, as the case may be.
Turn now to those affective phenomena which more directly concern us.
We soon learn to separate the ways in which things appeal to our interests and emotions from the ways in which they act upon one another.
It does not _work_ to a.s.sume that physical objects are going to act outwardly by their sympathetic or antipathetic qualities. The beauty of a thing or its value is no force that can be plotted in a polygon of compositions, nor does its "use" or "significance" affect in the minutest degree its vicissitudes or destiny at the hands of physical nature. Chemical "affinities" are a purely verbal metaphor; and, as I just said, even such things as forces, tensions, and activities can at a pinch be regarded as anthropomorphic projections. So far, then, as the physical world means the collection of contents that determine in each other certain regular changes, the whole collection of our appreciative attributes has to be treated as falling outside of it. If we mean by physical nature whatever lies beyond the surface of our bodies, these attributes are inert throughout the whole extent of physical nature.
Why then do men leave them as ambiguous as they do, and not cla.s.s them decisively as purely spiritual?
The reason would seem to be that, although they are inert as regards the rest of physical nature, they are not inert as regards that part of physical nature which our own skin covers. It is those very appreciative attributes of things, their dangerousness, beauty, rarity, utility, etc., that primarily appeal to our attention. In our commerce with nature these attributes are what give _emphasis_ to objects; and for an object to be emphatic, whatever spiritual fact it may mean, means also that it produces immediate bodily effects upon us, alterations of tone and tension, of heart-beat and breathing, of vascular and visceral action. The "interesting" aspects of things are thus not wholly inert physically, though they be active only in these small corners of physical nature which our bodies occupy. That, however, is enough to save them from being cla.s.sed as absolutely non-objective.
The attempt, if any one should make it, to sort experiences into two absolutely discrete groups, with nothing but inertness in one of them and nothing but activities in the other, would thus receive one check.
It would receive another as soon as we examined the more distinctively mental group; for though in that group it be true that things do not act on one another by their physical properties, do not dent each other or set fire to each other, they yet act on each other in the most energetic way by those very characters which are so inert extracorporeally. It is by the interest and importance that experiences have for us, by the emotions they excite, and the purposes they subserve, by their affective values, in short, that their consecution in our several conscious streams, as "thoughts" of ours, is mainly ruled. Desire introduces them; interest holds them; fitness fixes their order and connection. I need only refer for this aspect of our mental life, to Wundt"s article "Ueber psychische Causalitat," which begins Volume X. of his _Philosophische Studien_.[84]
It thus appears that the ambiguous or amphibious _status_ which we find our epithets of value occupying is the most natural thing in the world.
It would, however, be an unnatural status if the popular opinion which I cited at the outset were correct. If "physical" and "mental" meant two different kinds of intrinsic nature, immediately, intuitively, and infallibly discernible, and each fixed forever in whatever bit of experience it qualified, one does not see how there could ever have arisen any room for doubt or ambiguity. But if, on the contrary, these words are words of sorting, ambiguity is natural. For then, as soon as the relations of a thing are sufficiently various it can be sorted variously. Take a ma.s.s of carrion, for example, and the "disgustingness" which for us is part of the experience. The sun caresses it, and the zephyr wooes it as if it were a bed of roses. So the disgustingness fails to _operate_ within the realm of suns and breezes,--it does not function as a physical quality. But the carrion "turns our stomach" by what seems a direct operation--it _does_ function physically, therefore, in that limited part of physics. We can treat it as physical or as non-physical according as we take it in the narrower or in the wider context, and conversely, of course, we must treat it as non-mental or as mental.
Our body itself is the palmary instance of the ambiguous. Sometimes I treat my body purely as a part of outer nature. Sometimes, again, I think of it as "mine," I sort it with the "me," and then certain local changes and determinations in it pa.s.s for spiritual happenings. Its breathing is my "thinking," its sensorial adjustments are my "attention," its kinesthetic alterations are my "efforts," its visceral perturbations are my "emotions." The obstinate controversies that have arisen over such statements as these (which sound so paradoxical, and which can yet be made so seriously) prove how hard it is to decide by bare introspection what it is in experiences that shall make them either spiritual or material. It surely can be nothing intrinsic in the individual experience. It is their way of behaving towards each other, their system of relations, their function; and all these things vary with the context in which we find it opportune to consider them.
I think I may conclude, then (and I hope that my readers are now ready to conclude with me), that the pretended spirituality of our emotions and of our attributes of value, so far from proving an objection to the philosophy of pure experience, does, when rightly discussed and accounted for, serve as one of its best corroborations.
FOOTNOTES:
[75] [Reprinted from _The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, vol. II, No. 11, May 25, 1905.]
[76] It will be still better if he shall have also read the [essay]
ent.i.tled "A World of Pure Experience," which follows [the first] and develops its ideas still farther.
[77] [Cf. _The Principles of Psychology_, vol. II, ch. XXV; and "The Physical Basis of Emotion," _The Psychological Review_, vol. I, 1894, p.
516.]
[78] [See above, pp. 34, 35.]
[79] Page 102.
[80] [Cf. Janet and Seailles: _History of the Problems of Philosophy_, trans. by Monahan, part I, ch. III.]
[81] [Cf. Descartes: _Meditation_ II; _Principles of Philosophy_, part I, XLVIII.]
[82] [Cf. A. E. Taylor: _Elements of Metaphysics_, bk. III, ch. IV.]
[83] [Cf. K. Pearson: _Grammar of Science_, ch. III.]
[84] It is enough for my present purpose if the appreciative characters but _seem_ to act thus. Believers in an activity _an sich_, other than our mental experiences of activity, will find some farther reflections on the subject in my address on "The Experience of Activity." [The next essay. Cf. especially, p. 169. ED.]
VI
THE EXPERIENCE OF ACTIVITY[85]
BRETHREN OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL a.s.sOCIATION:
In casting about me for a subject for your President this year to talk about it has seemed to me that our experiences of activity would form a good one; not only because the topic is so naturally interesting, and because it has lately led to a good deal of rather inconclusive discussion, but because I myself am growing more and more interested in a certain systematic way of handling questions, and want to get others interested also, and this question strikes me as one in which, although I am painfully aware of my inability to communicate new discoveries or to reach definitive conclusions, I yet can show, in a rather definite manner, how the method works.
The way of handling things I speak of, is, as you already will have suspected, that known sometimes as the pragmatic method, sometimes as humanism, sometimes as Deweyism, and in France, by some of the disciples of Bergson, as the Philosophie nouvelle. Professor Woodbridge"s _Journal of Philosophy_[86] seems unintentionally to have become a sort of meeting place for those who follow these tendencies in America. There is only a dim ident.i.ty among them; and the most that can be said at present is that some sort of gestation seems to be in the atmosphere, and that almost any day a man with a genius for finding the right word for things may hit upon some unifying and conciliating formula that will make so much vaguely similar aspiration crystallize into more definite form.
I myself have given the name of "radical empiricism" to that version of the tendency in question which I prefer; and I propose, if you will now let me, to ill.u.s.trate what I mean by radical empiricism, by applying it to activity as an example, hoping at the same time incidentally to leave the general problem of activity in a slightly--I fear very slightly--more manageable shape than before.
Mr. Bradley calls the question of activity a scandal to philosophy, and if one turns to the current literature of the subject--his own writings included--one easily gathers what he means. The opponents cannot even understand one another. Mr. Bradley says to Mr. Ward: "I do not care what your oracle is, and your preposterous psychology may here be gospel if you please; ... but if the revelation does contain a meaning, I will commit myself to this: either the oracle is so confused that its signification is not discoverable, or, upon the other hand, if it can be pinned down to any definite statement, then that statement will be false."[87] Mr. Ward in turn says of Mr. Bradley: "I cannot even imagine the state of mind to which his description applies.... [It] reads like an unintentional travesty of Herbartian psychology by one who has tried to improve upon it without being at the pains to master it."[88]
Munsterberg excludes a view opposed to his own by saying that with any one who holds it a _Verstandigung_ with him is "_grundsatzlich ausgeschlossen_"; and Royce, in a review of Stout,[89] hauls him over the coals at great length for defending "efficacy" in a way which I, for one, never gathered from reading him, and which I have heard Stout himself say was quite foreign to the intention of his text.
In these discussions distinct questions are habitually jumbled and different points of view are talked of _durcheinander_.
(1) There is a psychological question: "Have we perceptions of activity?
and if so, what are they like, and when and where do we have them?"
(2) There is a metaphysical question: "Is there a _fact_ of activity?
and if so, what idea must we frame of it? What is it like? and what does it do, if it does anything?" And finally there is a logical question:
(3) "Whence do we _know_ activity? By our own feelings of it solely? or by some other source of information?" Throughout page after page of the literature one knows not which of these questions is before one; and mere description of the surface-show of experience is proferred as if it implicitly answered every one of them. No one of the disputants, moreover, tries to show what pragmatic consequences his own view would carry, or what a.s.signable particular differences in any one"s experience it would make if his adversary"s were triumphant.
It seems to me that if radical empiricism be good for anything, it ought, with its pragmatic method and its principle of pure experience, to be able to avoid such tangles, or at least to simplify them somewhat.
The pragmatic method starts from the postulate that there is no difference of truth that doesn"t make a difference of fact somewhere; and it seeks to determine the meaning of all differences of opinion by making the discussion hinge as soon as possible upon some practical or particular issue. The principle of pure experience is also a methodical postulate. Nothing shall be admitted as fact, it says, except what can be experienced at some definite time by some experient; and for every feature of fact ever so experienced, a definite place must be found somewhere in the final system of reality. In other words: Everything real must be experienceable somewhere, and every kind of thing experienced must somewhere be real.
Armed with these rules of method let us see what face the problems of activity present to us.
By the principle of pure experience, either the word "activity" must have no meaning at all, or else the original type and model of what it means must lie in some concrete kind of experience that can be definitely pointed out. Whatever ulterior judgments we may eventually come to make regarding activity, _that sort_ of thing will be what the judgments are about. The first step to take, then, is to ask where in the stream of experience we seem to find what we speak of as activity.
What we are to think of the activity thus found will be a later question.
Now it is obvious that we are tempted to affirm activity wherever we find anything _going on_. Taken in the broadest sense, any apprehension of something _doing_, is an experience of activity. Were our world describable only by the words "nothing happening," "nothing changing,"
"nothing doing," we should unquestionably call it an "inactive" world.
Bare activity then, as we may call it, means the bare fact of event or change. "Change taking place" is a unique content of experience, one of those "conjunctive" objects which radical empiricism seeks so earnestly to rehabilitate and preserve. The sense of activity is thus in the broadest and vaguest way synonymous with the sense of "life." We should feel our own subjective life at least, even in noticing and proclaiming an otherwise inactive world. Our own reaction on its monotony would be the one thing experienced there in the form of something coming to pa.s.s.
This seems to be what certain writers have in mind when they insist that for an experient to be at all is to be active. It seems to justify, or at any rate to explain, Mr. Ward"s expression that we _are_ only as we are active,[90] for we _are_ only as experients; and it rules out Mr.
Bradley"s contention that "there is no original experience of anything like activity."[91] What we ought to say about activities thus elementary, whose they are, what they effect, or whether indeed they effect anything at all--these are later questions, to be answered only when the field of experience is enlarged.