In his epistemological system Mead begins with that which the chief philosophers rejected, the novel or exceptional, and makes it central. It is central in a respect which should be carefully explained. The novel or emergent is that with reference to which a present is defined, and a present is the seat of reality. In saying this Mead does not mean that “the past” and “the future” are meaningless terms. Nor does he reduce them to a present. Rather he holds (...) that neither the past nor the future exists. In fact, they are meaningful only in relation to a present and the various pasts and futures referred to in our statement of causal conditions and predictions belong to a present, which is their seat. Mead escapes the metaphysical problem as to whether the past or the future has some sort of being even now. Certainly in so far as he has a metaphysics at all it derives from his epistemology which is primary and represents a pioneering attempt to develop a theory of knowledge answering to experimental science. Consciously or unconsciously most contemporary scientists are still under the influence of bygone epistemological and metaphysical doctrines in their explicit statements of what constitutes reality and knowing. Yet in so far as they are successful in practice obviously they are free from the blind alleys and dead ends which these older theories lead to logically. However no one, not even the philosopher, has been able to formulate a consistent set of epistemological principles from which experimental scientific procedure follows logically. One thing, Mead contends, has been wholly neglected. It is the emergent. (shrink)

It seems that Whitehead's original problem, as evidenced in his earlier works, was epistemological and metaphysical dualism. His method of extensive abstraction is an attempt to bring the factual world and the abstract world of thought together. So far as his books on nature are concerned, then, Whitehead denied the ultimate reality of a static world and accepted the reality of dynamic relations analogous to the relations found in a biological organism.

The following definitions and explanations are decisions formulated arbitrarily in a sense. However, the underlying assumptions serving as a guide to their formulation are found in both pragmatism and logical positivism. Yet there has been some confusion of the difference between definitions, axioms, postulates, etc., and as a result there is a confusion of certain phases of formal and factual knowledge. For example, one notices in C. I. Lewis' works that all formal statements are thought of as “definitive.” A more (...) effective word, I believe, is “prescriptive.” Axioms are prescriptive, yet, as will be seen below, they are not definitions, and no one in practice conceives of them as such, as can be seen in mathematical works. Axioms prescribe the logical relationship between two or more concepts or words. If interpreted, the factual referents of the words, whose logical relations have been prescribed in axioms, are different. This is not the case with definitions. (shrink)

I want to commend the article, “Studies in the Logic of Explanation,” Philosophy of Science, April, 1948, by Hempel and Oppenheim. However, there are two points in the article that have been treated in a manner incompatible with the general attitude taken by the authors and, I believe, they are mistaken in these two rather essential matters. The first concerns the relationship between emergents and prediction. The second concerns the relationship between “evidence” or sense data and law.

In this article we will not undertake the more inclusive task of defining metaphysics or of discussing metaphysical principles, such as the principle of causation, or of considering the use of metaphysical entities in general. Rather our remarks will be confined primarily to metaphysical entities in the field of physics. A good example of such an entity is the electron.

This chapter explores what might seem to be a problem between depth psychological and mystical theological perspectives. A common psychological complaint is that one feels to be without value, that life is meaningless and empty, that the self is inadequate and without hope, in short, that one suffers a sense of nothingness. Yet a great many of the world’s mystical theologies hold out for a spiritual goal of becoming precisely nothing. Mystical spirituality in such religious traditions is spoken of in (...) rhetoric that suggests that a seeker should not aspire to achieve a self-sense, selfhood or identity, but that one precisely ought to lose these in favor of a sense of no-self. Are the psychological and the mystical “nothingnesses” different? Is this a semantic accident, a slippage of language where one word signifies different states? Or are there really different “nothings”? It will be the argument in this chapter that the nothingness of psychology and mysticism in fact is indicating the same “no-self.”. (shrink)

Saunders & van Brakel's analysis of the phenomenal categorization and subsequent experimental research in unique hues fails to include contemporary methodological improvements. Alternative strategies are offered from the author's research that rely less on language and world knowledge and provide strong evidence for the general theoretical constructs of elemental hue, nonbasic, and basic color terms.

In a recent issue of Philosophy of Science Merrit H. Moore contends that it is not only possible but methodologically desirable to separate design in nature from purpose. The main part of his argument is devoted to a support of the proposition that “design” is objective, by which he means that design in the physical world is independent of mind. That which gives interest to Mr. Moore's argument is essentially the Kantian doctrine that the forms of the understanding, and consequently (...) of knowledge, are furnished by the mind and are, in a sense, imposed upon sense-experience thereby making them rational. In contrast to the Kantian view stands the Humean doctrine that knowledge is analyzable into and limited by sense-impressions. (shrink)

From the scientific standpoint, then, the crucial question concerning vitalism and mechanism is this: Does the belief in, or even a knowledge of, the existence of a vital principle have any scientific value? That is, can such a principle be of help in understanding phenomena scientifically, remembering that "scientific understanding" means to most scientists the ability to predict and control?

In Physical Theory Mr. Lenzen writes, “Thus the concept of thing is the concept of a class of aspects which are in the past, present, or future for several minds.” Again, in Mind and the World-Order, Mr. Lewis defines “thing” as “… a complex of properties or qualities, recognizable by some uniformity of appearance.” Without questioning the metaphysics implied in these two definitions of “thing” I shall accept them as quite compatible and as useful in defining the rôle of experience (...) in the construction of scientific objects. If in “Pragmatism and Metaphysics” Mr. Morris has not established proof of the existence of objects independent of any and all experience of them, he certainly has shown conclusively that the possibility of experiencing objects is independent of any and all observers. (shrink)

The belief in the old type of a priori knowledge is gone. Cartesian innate ideas vanished with the severe criticism of Kant who held that only the form, not the content, of experience is known a priori. More recent criticism of Kant's a priori has taken place indirectly by way of the development of non-Euclidian geometries so that today there is no longer the belief that either the content or the form of experience is fixed and changeless or known with (...) certainty a priori. But has the a priori phase of experience passed altogether? If not, what in recent thought has taken its place? (shrink)

Here we will discuss the necessary relationship between both prediction and human behavior and meaning and human behavior. The main assumption upon which our thesis rests is that knowing is for the sake of acting and that, consequently, the symbolic process is continuous with overt bodily behavior and with the environment of the knower. A corollary to this assumption is: the locus of meaning is in behavior. Possibly after reading the article it will be clear that meanings presuppose conduct of (...) which we can take cognizance, and that there is a difference between behaving and taking cognizance of behavior. And although the locus of meaning is in behavior, meanings emerge only in relation to the symbolic process. In a sense we suffer, endure, live through behavior, but in the bare suffering of it there may be no meaning, for meaning requires also the symbolic process. (shrink)

Today there is almost universal agreement among scientists and philosophers that no factual statement or hypothesis about the world of fact has meaning apart from experienceable phenomena. In general we say we must find evidence for every hypothesis or theory before we can consider it as even probably true. But when we state the relationship between hypotheses and evidence in this way, by implication we are still holding that hypotheses have priority over data or that the function of data is (...) to support pre-conceived ideas. This is, by implication, and acknowledgment of the primacy of rationalism over empiricism or of reason over sense data, or of explanation over that which is to be explained. (shrink)

Until the theory of evolution was developed in recent times, two theories of change were more or less in competition with each other. The first held that ends, purposes, goals,, are both the cause of change and constitute that toward which change is directed, as when the form of man directs the growth of a child and is the aim of growth. Hence, from this point of view, change is both accounted for and understood through what were called “final causes.”.

In his monograph, “Foundations of the Theory of Signs”, Mr. Morris offers us a framework of ideas which is useful in analyzing many philosophic problems. On the basis of Morris' categories I want to show that it is both logically possible and desirable to make a distinction between two kinds of certainty. I will call them purely logical certainty and practical certainty. They may be called syntactical certainty and pragmatical certainty also.