Pragmatism's View of Truth

When Clerk Maxwell was a child it is written that he had a mania for having everything explained to him, and that when people put him off with vague verbal accounts of any phenomenon he would interrupt them impatiently by saying, "Yes; but I want you to tell me the PARTICULAR GO of it!" Had his question been about truth, only a pragmatist could have told him the particular go of it. I believe that our contemporary pragmatists, especially Messrs. Schiller and Dewey, have given the only tenable account of this subject. It is a very ticklish subject, sending subtle rootlets into all kinds of crannies, and hard to treat in the sketchy way that alone befits a public lecture. But the Schiller-Dewey view of truth has been so ferociously attacked by rationalistic philosophers, and so abominably misunderstood, that here, if anywhere, is the point where a clear and simple statement should be made.

It is said that, as a child, Clerk Maxwell was obsessed with having everything explained to him. When people tried to put him off with vague verbal accounts of a phenomenon, he would interrupt impatiently: "Yes; but I want you to tell me exactly how it works!" If his question had been about truth, only a pragmatist could have told him exactly how it works. I believe that today’s pragmatists, especially Messrs. Schiller and Dewey, have given the only defensible account of truth. It is a very delicate subject. Its subtle roots reach into all kinds of hidden corners, and it is hard to cover briefly, as a public lecture requires. But rationalist philosophers have attacked the Schiller-Dewey view of truth so fiercely and misunderstood it so badly that this is surely the place to state it clearly and simply.

I fully expect to see the pragmatist view of truth run through the classic stages of a theory's career. First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it. Our doctrine of truth is at present in the first of these three stages, with symptoms of the second stage having begun in certain quarters. I wish that this lecture might help it beyond the first stage in the eyes of many of you.

I fully expect the pragmatist view of truth to pass through the classic stages in the life of a theory. First, as you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd. Then it is accepted as true, but dismissed as obvious and unimportant. Finally, the theory is seen as so important that its opponents claim they discovered it themselves. Our doctrine of truth is now in the first of these three stages, though signs of the second have begun to appear in some quarters. I hope this lecture will help bring the doctrine beyond the first stage in the eyes of many of you.

Truth, as any dictionary will tell you, is a property of certain of our ideas. It means their 'agreement,' as falsity means their disagreement, with 'reality.' Pragmatists and intellectualists both accept this definition as a matter of course. They begin to quarrel only after the question is raised as to what may precisely be meant by the term 'agreement,' and what by the term 'reality,' when reality is taken as something for our ideas to agree with.

As any dictionary will tell you, truth is a property of certain ideas. Truth means that those ideas 'agree' with 'reality,' just as falsity means that they disagree with it. Pragmatists and intellectualists both accept this definition without question. They begin to disagree only when they ask what 'agreement' and 'reality' mean in this definition. In particular, they ask what 'reality' means when it is understood as something our ideas agree with.

In answering these questions the pragmatists are more analytic and painstaking, the intellectualists more offhand and irreflective. The popular notion is that a true idea must copy its reality. Like other popular views, this one follows the analogy of the most usual experience. Our true ideas of sensible things do indeed copy them. Shut your eyes and think of yonder clock on the wall, and you get just such a true picture or copy of its dial. But your idea of its 'works' (unless you are a clock-maker) is much less of a copy, yet it passes muster, for it in no way clashes with the reality. Even tho it should shrink to the mere word 'works,' that word still serves you truly; and when you speak of the 'time-keeping function' of the clock, or of its spring's 'elasticity,' it is hard to see exactly what your ideas can copy.

In answering these questions, pragmatists are more analytical and careful, while intellectualists are more casual and unreflective. The common view is that a true idea must copy the reality it represents. Like other common views, this one is based on what usually happens in experience. Our true ideas of things we can sense do indeed copy them. Close your eyes and think of that clock on the wall, and you get a true picture or copy of its face. But your idea of its 'works' is much less like a copy, unless you are a clockmaker. Yet the idea is adequate because it does not conflict with reality in any way. Even if your idea comes down to the word 'works,' that word still serves you truly. And when you speak of the clock's 'time-keeping function,' or its spring's 'elasticity,' it is hard to see exactly what your ideas could copy.

You perceive that there is a problem here. Where our ideas cannot copy definitely their object, what does agreement with that object mean? Some idealists seem to say that they are true whenever they are what God means that we ought to think about that object. Others hold the copy-view all through, and speak as if our ideas possessed truth just in proportion as they approach to being copies of the Absolute's eternal way of thinking.

You can see there is a problem here. When our ideas cannot clearly copy their object, what does it mean for them to agree with it? Some idealists seem to say that our ideas are true whenever they are what God intends us to think about that object. Others hold to the copy-view throughout. They speak as if our ideas are true only to the extent that they approach being copies of the Absolute's eternal way of thinking.

These views, you see, invite pragmatistic discussion. But the great assumption of the intellectualists is that truth means essentially an inert static relation. When you've got your true idea of anything, there's an end of the matter. You're in possession; you KNOW; you have fulfilled your thinking destiny. You are where you ought to be mentally; you have obeyed your categorical imperative; and nothing more need follow on that climax of your rational destiny. Epistemologically you are in stable equilibrium.

These views, you see, invite a pragmatist discussion. But intellectualists make one major assumption: truth is essentially a fixed, inactive relation. Once you have a true idea of something, that is the end of the matter. You have it. You KNOW. You have fulfilled your destiny as a thinker. Your mind is where it ought to be. You have obeyed your categorical imperative. Nothing more needs to follow from this high point of your rational destiny. As far as knowledge is concerned, you are in a state of stable equilibrium.

Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"

Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks its usual question. "Suppose an idea or belief is true," it says. "What concrete difference will its truth make in anyone's actual life? How will its truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those we would have if the belief were false? In short, what is the truth's cash value in terms of experience?"

The moment pragmatism asks this question, it sees the answer: TRUE IDEAS ARE THOSE THAT WE CAN ASSIMILATE, VALIDATE, CORROBORATE AND VERIFY. FALSE IDEAS ARE THOSE THAT WE CANNOT. That is the practical difference it makes to us to have true ideas; that, therefore, is the meaning of truth, for it is all that truth is known-as.

As soon as pragmatism asks this question, it sees the answer: TRUE IDEAS ARE THOSE WE CAN TAKE IN, VALIDATE, CONFIRM, AND VERIFY. FALSE IDEAS ARE THOSE WE CANNOT. This is the practical difference that having true ideas makes to us. Therefore, this is what truth means, because it is all we know truth to be.

This thesis is what I have to defend. The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth HAPPENS to an idea. It BECOMES true, is MADE true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its veri-FICATION. Its validity is the process of its valid-ATION.

This is the claim I must defend. Truth is not a fixed quality that an idea has in itself. Truth HAPPENS to an idea. An idea BECOMES true. Events MAKE it true. Its truth is, in fact, an event, a process: the process by which the idea verifies itself, its veri-FICATION. Its validity is the process of its valid-ATION.

But what do the words verification and validation themselves pragmatically mean? They again signify certain practical consequences of the verified and validated idea. It is hard to find any one phrase that characterizes these consequences better than the ordinary agreement-formula—just such consequences being what we have in mind whenever we say that our ideas 'agree' with reality. They lead us, namely, through the acts and other ideas which they instigate, into or up to, or towards, other parts of experience with which we feel all the while-such feeling being among our potentialities—that the original ideas remain in agreement. The connexions and transitions come to us from point to point as being progressive, harmonious, satisfactory. This function of agreeable leading is what we mean by an idea's verification. Such an account is vague and it sounds at first quite trivial, but it has results which it will take the rest of my hour to explain.

But what do the words verification and validation themselves mean in practical terms? They, too, mean certain practical consequences of the verified and validated idea. It is hard to describe these consequences better than by the ordinary phrase “agreement with reality.” These are just the consequences we have in mind whenever we say that our ideas 'agree' with reality. Through the actions and other ideas they prompt, our ideas lead us into, up to, or toward other parts of experience. Along the way, we can feel that the original ideas remain in agreement with those parts of experience. As we move from point to point, the connections and transitions feel progressive, harmonious, and satisfying. This function of leading us along agreeably is what we mean by an idea's verification. This account is vague, and at first it sounds quite trivial. But it has consequences that will take the rest of my hour to explain.

Let me begin by reminding you of the fact that the possession of true thoughts means everywhere the possession of invaluable instruments of action; and that our duty to gain truth, so far from being a blank command from out of the blue, or a 'stunt' self-imposed by our intellect, can account for itself by excellent practical reasons.

Let me begin by reminding you that true thoughts are always invaluable tools for action. Our duty to seek truth is not a command out of the blue or a 'stunt' imposed by our own intellect. It has excellent practical reasons behind it.

The importance to human life of having true beliefs about matters of fact is a thing too notorious. We live in a world of realities that can be infinitely useful or infinitely harmful. Ideas that tell us which of them to expect count as the true ideas in all this primary sphere of verification, and the pursuit of such ideas is a primary human duty. The possession of truth, so far from being here an end in itself, is only a preliminary means towards other vital satisfactions. If I am lost in the woods and starved, and find what looks like a cow-path, it is of the utmost importance that I should think of a human habitation at the end of it, for if I do so and follow it, I save myself. The true thought is useful here because the house which is its object is useful. The practical value of true ideas is thus primarily derived from the practical importance of their objects to us. Their objects are, indeed, not important at all times. I may on another occasion have no use for the house; and then my idea of it, however verifiable, will be practically irrelevant, and had better remain latent. Yet since almost any object may some day become temporarily important, the advantage of having a general stock of extra truths, of ideas that shall be true of merely possible situations, is obvious. We store such extra truths away in our memories, and with the overflow we fill our books of reference. Whenever such an extra truth becomes practically relevant to one of our emergencies, it passes from cold-storage to do work in the world, and our belief in it grows active. You can say of it then either that 'it is useful because it is true' or that 'it is true because it is useful.' Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing, namely that here is an idea that gets fulfilled and can be verified. True is the name for whatever idea starts the verification-process, useful is the name for its completed function in experience. True ideas would never have been singled out as such, would never have acquired a class-name, least of all a name suggesting value, unless they had been useful from the outset in this way.

The importance of true beliefs about matters of fact is too well known to need explaining. We live in a world of realities that can be infinitely useful or infinitely harmful. In this basic realm of verification, true ideas are those that tell us which realities to expect. Seeking such ideas is a basic human duty. Far from being an end in itself, possessing truth is only a first step toward other vital satisfactions. Suppose I am lost and starving in the woods and find what looks like a cow path. It is extremely important that I think there is a house at the end of it. If I think so and follow the path, I save myself. The true thought is useful here because the house it refers to is useful. So the practical value of true ideas comes primarily from the practical importance of what they refer to. But what our ideas refer to is not important at all times. On another occasion, I may have no use for the house. Then my idea of it, however easy to verify, will have no practical relevance. It would be better left dormant. Yet almost any object may someday become temporarily important. So it is clearly useful to have a general store of extra truths, ideas that hold true in merely possible situations. We store these extra truths in our memories, and we fill our reference books with the overflow. Whenever an extra truth becomes practically relevant to an emergency, it comes out of cold storage to work in the world. Our belief in it then becomes active. You can then say either that 'it is useful because it is true' or that 'it is true because it is useful.' Both phrases mean exactly the same thing. They mean that an idea is borne out and can be verified. We call an idea true when it starts the process of verification. We call it useful when it completes its function in experience. True ideas would never have been singled out as such or given a name as a group, much less a name suggesting value, unless they had been useful in this way from the start.

From this simple cue pragmatism gets her general notion of truth as something essentially bound up with the way in which one moment in our experience may lead us towards other moments which it will be worth while to have been led to. Primarily, and on the common-sense level, the truth of a state of mind means this function of A LEADING THAT IS WORTH WHILE. When a moment in our experience, of any kind whatever, inspires us with a thought that is true, that means that sooner or later we dip by that thought's guidance into the particulars of experience again and make advantageous connexion with them. This is a vague enough statement, but I beg you to retain it, for it is essential.

From this simple clue, pragmatism gets its general idea of truth. Truth is essentially tied to how one moment of experience may lead us to other moments worth experiencing. On the basic, common-sense level, a state of mind is true when it serves as A LEADING THAT IS WORTH WHILE. A moment of experience, of any kind, may inspire us with a true thought. That means the thought guides us back into the details of experience sooner or later, where we make useful connections with them. This is a vague statement, but I ask you to keep it in mind, because it is essential.

Our experience meanwhile is all shot through with regularities. One bit of it can warn us to get ready for another bit, can 'intend' or be 'significant of' that remoter object. The object's advent is the significance's verification. Truth, in these cases, meaning nothing but eventual verification, is manifestly incompatible with waywardness on our part. Woe to him whose beliefs play fast and loose with the order which realities follow in his experience: they will lead him nowhere or else make false connexions.

Meanwhile, all our experience is full of regular patterns. One part of our experience can warn us to prepare for another. It can 'point to' or 'signify' that more distant object. The object's arrival confirms what the first experience signified. In these cases, truth means nothing more than eventual confirmation. Clearly, then, truth is incompatible with careless beliefs. Woe to anyone whose beliefs disregard the order in which realities appear in their experience. Those beliefs will lead them nowhere or make false connections.

By 'realities' or 'objects' here, we mean either things of common sense, sensibly present, or else common-sense relations, such as dates, places, distances, kinds, activities. Following our mental image of a house along the cow-path, we actually come to see the house; we get the image's full verification. SUCH SIMPLY AND FULLY VERIFIED LEADINGS ARE CERTAINLY THE ORIGINALS AND PROTOTYPES OF THE TRUTH-PROCESS. Experience offers indeed other forms of truth-process, but they are all conceivable as being primary verifications arrested, multiplied or substituted one for another.

By 'realities' or 'objects' here, we mean things we can perceive through our senses. We also mean common-sense relations, such as dates, places, distances, kinds, and activities. Suppose we have a mental image of a house and follow a cow-path to it. When we actually see the house, our mental image is fully verified. SUCH SIMPLE AND COMPLETE VERIFICATIONS ARE CERTAINLY THE ORIGINALS AND PROTOTYPES OF THE TRUTH-PROCESS. Experience does offer other forms of the truth-process. But all of them can be understood as primary verifications that have been stopped short, multiplied, or substituted for one another.

Take, for instance, yonder object on the wall. You and I consider it to be a 'clock,' altho no one of us has seen the hidden works that make it one. We let our notion pass for true without attempting to verify. If truths mean verification-process essentially, ought we then to call such unverified truths as this abortive? No, for they form the overwhelmingly large number of the truths we live by. Indirect as well as direct verifications pass muster. Where circumstantial evidence is sufficient, we can go without eye-witnessing. Just as we here assume Japan to exist without ever having been there, because it WORKS to do so, everything we know conspiring with the belief, and nothing interfering, so we assume that thing to be a clock. We USE it as a clock, regulating the length of our lecture by it. The verification of the assumption here means its leading to no frustration or contradiction. VerifiABILITY of wheels and weights and pendulum is as good as verification. For one truth-process completed there are a million in our lives that function in this state of nascency. They turn us TOWARDS direct verification; lead us into the SURROUNDINGS of the objects they envisage; and then, if everything runs on harmoniously, we are so sure that verification is possible that we omit it, and are usually justified by all that happens.

Take, for example, that object on the wall. You and I consider it a 'clock,' although neither of us has seen the hidden mechanism that makes it one. We accept our idea as true without trying to verify it. If truths are essentially processes of verification, should we call such unverified truths incomplete? No, because they make up the overwhelming majority of the truths we live by. Both indirect and direct verification are acceptable. When circumstantial evidence is sufficient, we can do without seeing for ourselves. For example, we assume that Japan exists, even though we have never been there. We do this because it WORKS: everything we know supports the belief, and nothing contradicts it. In the same way, we assume that object is a clock. We USE it as a clock, timing the length of our lecture by it. Here, verifying the assumption means finding that it leads to no frustration or contradiction. The possibility of verifying the wheels, weights, and pendulum is as good as actual verification. For every completed truth process, a million others in our lives function in this early stage. They turn us TOWARD direct verification. They lead us into the SURROUNDINGS of the objects we have in mind. Then, if everything goes smoothly, we are so sure verification is possible that we do not bother with it. And we are usually justified by everything that happens.

Truth lives, in fact, for the most part on a credit system. Our thoughts and beliefs 'pass,' so long as nothing challenges them, just as bank-notes pass so long as nobody refuses them. But this all points to direct face-to-face verifications somewhere, without which the fabric of truth collapses like a financial system with no cash-basis whatever. You accept my verification of one thing, I yours of another. We trade on each other's truth. But beliefs verified concretely by SOMEBODY are the posts of the whole superstructure.

In fact, truth mostly runs on a credit system. Our thoughts and beliefs 'pass' as long as nothing challenges them. Banknotes pass in the same way, as long as nobody refuses them. But all this points to direct, firsthand checks somewhere. Without them, the fabric of truth collapses like a financial system with no cash to back it. You accept my verification of one thing, and I accept yours of another. We trade on each other's truth. But beliefs that SOMEBODY has verified through concrete experience are the supports for the whole structure.

Another great reason—beside economy of time—for waiving complete verification in the usual business of life is that all things exist in kinds and not singly. Our world is found once for all to have that peculiarity. So that when we have once directly verified our ideas about one specimen of a kind, we consider ourselves free to apply them to other specimens without verification. A mind that habitually discerns the kind of thing before it, and acts by the law of the kind immediately, without pausing to verify, will be a 'true' mind in ninety-nine out of a hundred emergencies, proved so by its conduct fitting everything it meets, and getting no refutation.

Another major reason, besides saving time, for not verifying everything in everyday life is that all things belong to kinds. They do not exist as isolated individuals. We have discovered once and for all that our world has this peculiarity. So once we have directly verified our ideas about one example of a kind, we feel free to apply those ideas to other examples without checking them. A mind that habitually recognizes the kind of thing before it and immediately acts according to that kind's rules will be a 'true' mind in ninety-nine out of a hundred emergencies, even without pausing to check. Its actions will prove it true by fitting everything it encounters and meeting with no contradiction.

INDIRECTLY OR ONLY POTENTIALLY VERIFYING PROCESSES MAY THUS BE TRUE AS WELL AS FULL VERIFICATION-PROCESSES. They work as true processes would work, give us the same advantages, and claim our recognition for the same reasons. All this on the common-sense level of, matters of fact, which we are alone considering.

PROCESSES THAT VERIFY ONLY INDIRECTLY OR POTENTIALLY MAY THEREFORE BE TRUE, JUST AS PROCESSES THAT FULLY VERIFY MAY BE TRUE. They work as true processes would, give us the same advantages, and deserve our recognition for the same reasons. All this concerns the common-sense level of matters of fact, which is all we are considering.

But matters of fact are not our only stock in trade. RELATIONS AMONG PURELY MENTAL IDEAS form another sphere where true and false beliefs obtain, and here the beliefs are absolute, or unconditional. When they are true they bear the name either of definitions or of principles. It is either a principle or a definition that 1 and 1 make 2, that 2 and 1 make 3, and so on; that white differs less from gray than it does from black; that when the cause begins to act the effect also commences. Such propositions hold of all possible 'ones,' of all conceivable 'whites' and 'grays' and 'causes.' The objects here are mental objects. Their relations are perceptually obvious at a glance, and no sense-verification is necessary. Moreover, once true, always true, of those same mental objects. Truth here has an 'eternal' character. If you can find a concrete thing anywhere that is 'one' or 'white' or 'gray,' or an 'effect,' then your principles will everlastingly apply to it. It is but a case of ascertaining the kind, and then applying the law of its kind to the particular object. You are sure to get truth if you can but name the kind rightly, for your mental relations hold good of everything of that kind without exception. If you then, nevertheless, failed to get truth concretely, you would say that you had classed your real objects wrongly.

But facts are not the only things we deal with. RELATIONS AMONG PURELY MENTAL IDEAS are another area where beliefs can be true or false. Here, beliefs are absolute, or unconditional. When true, they are called either definitions or principles. It is either a principle or a definition that 1 and 1 make 2, that 2 and 1 make 3, and so on. The same is true of the claim that white differs less from gray than from black. It is also true of the claim that when a cause begins to act, its effect also begins. Such statements hold for all possible 'ones,' all imaginable 'whites' and 'grays' and 'causes.' These are mental objects. Their relations are obvious at a glance, and no checking through the senses is necessary. Moreover, once true, these relations are always true of those same mental objects. Truth here has an 'eternal' character. If you can find a concrete thing anywhere that is 'one' or 'white' or 'gray,' or an 'effect,' then your principles will always apply to it. You need only determine what kind of thing it is, then apply the law of that kind to it. If you can correctly name the kind, you are sure to arrive at the truth. For these mental relations hold for everything of that kind, without exception. If you still failed to arrive at the truth in a concrete case, you would say that you had classified the real objects wrongly.

In this realm of mental relations, truth again is an affair of leading. We relate one abstract idea with another, framing in the end great systems of logical and mathematical truth, under the respective terms of which the sensible facts of experience eventually arrange themselves, so that our eternal truths hold good of realities also. This marriage of fact and theory is endlessly fertile. What we say is here already true in advance of special verification, IF WE HAVE SUBSUMED OUR OBJECTS RIGHTLY. Our ready-made ideal framework for all sorts of possible objects follows from the very structure of our thinking. We can no more play fast and loose with these abstract relations than we can do so with our sense-experiences. They coerce us; we must treat them consistently, whether or not we like the results. The rules of addition apply to our debts as rigorously as to our assets. The hundredth decimal of pi, the ratio of the circumference to its diameter, is predetermined ideally now, tho no one may have computed it. If we should ever need the figure in our dealings with an actual circle we should need to have it given rightly, calculated by the usual rules; for it is the same kind of truth that those rules elsewhere calculate.

In the realm of mental relations, truth again is a matter of where ideas lead us. We connect one abstract idea with another, eventually building great systems of logical and mathematical truth. The facts we perceive through experience eventually fit into these systems, so that our eternal truths also hold true of reality. This union of fact and theory is endlessly fruitful. What we say here is already true before any particular test, IF WE HAVE CLASSIFIED OUR OBJECTS CORRECTLY. Our ready-made framework of ideas for all kinds of possible objects follows from the very structure of our thinking. We can no more treat these abstract relations carelessly than we can treat our sensory experiences that way. These relations constrain us. We must treat them consistently, whether or not we like the results. The rules of addition apply just as strictly to our debts as to our assets. The hundredth decimal place of pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, is already fixed in theory, though no one may have calculated it. If we ever needed that digit in dealing with an actual circle, we would need the correct digit, calculated by the usual rules. For it is the same kind of truth that those rules calculate elsewhere.

Between the coercions of the sensible order and those of the ideal order, our mind is thus wedged tightly. Our ideas must agree with realities, be such realities concrete or abstract, be they facts or be they principles, under penalty of endless inconsistency and frustration. So far, intellectualists can raise no protest. They can only say that we have barely touched the skin of the matter.

Our minds are thus caught between the pressures of the world of the senses and those of the world of ideas. Our ideas must agree with reality, whether concrete or abstract, whether facts or principles. Otherwise, we face endless inconsistency and frustration. So far, intellectualists can raise no objection. They can only say that we have barely scratched the surface of the matter.

Realities mean, then, either concrete facts, or abstract kinds of things and relations perceived intuitively between them. They furthermore and thirdly mean, as things that new ideas of ours must no less take account of, the whole body of other truths already in our possession. But what now does 'agreement' with such three-fold realities mean?—to use again the definition that is current.

Realities, then, mean either concrete facts or abstract kinds of things and relations we perceive intuitively between them. Third, realities also include the whole body of truths we already possess. Our new ideas must take these truths into account no less than the other realities. But what does 'agreement' with these three kinds of reality mean? I use the word again because it is part of the current definition.

Here it is that pragmatism and intellectualism begin to part company. Primarily, no doubt, to agree means to copy, but we saw that the mere word 'clock' would do instead of a mental picture of its works, and that of many realities our ideas can only be symbols and not copies. 'Past time,' 'power,' 'spontaneity'—how can our mind copy such realities?

This is where pragmatism and intellectualism begin to part ways. No doubt, to agree primarily means to copy. But we saw that the word 'clock' alone could take the place of a mental picture of its workings. We also saw that our ideas of many realities can only be symbols, not copies. 'Past time,' 'power,' 'spontaneity': how can our minds copy such realities?

To 'agree' in the widest sense with a reality, CAN ONLY MEAN TO BE GUIDED EITHER STRAIGHT UP TO IT OR INTO ITS SURROUNDINGS, OR TO BE PUT INTO SUCH WORKING TOUCH WITH IT AS TO HANDLE EITHER IT OR SOMETHING CONNECTED WITH IT BETTER THAN IF WE DISAGREED. Better either intellectually or practically! And often agreement will only mean the negative fact that nothing contradictory from the quarter of that reality comes to interfere with the way in which our ideas guide us elsewhere. To copy a reality is, indeed, one very important way of agreeing with it, but it is far from being essential. The essential thing is the process of being guided. Any idea that helps us to DEAL, whether practically or intellectually, with either the reality or its belongings, that doesn't entangle our progress in frustrations, that FITS, in fact, and adapts our life to the reality's whole setting, will agree sufficiently to meet the requirement. It will hold true of that reality.

To 'agree' with a reality, in the broadest sense, can only mean being guided directly to it or into its surroundings. Or it can mean being brought into working contact with it. This contact lets us handle the reality or something connected with it better than we could if we disagreed. Better either intellectually or practically! Often, agreement will mean only that nothing from that reality contradicts our ideas or interferes with how they guide us elsewhere. Copying a reality is indeed one very important way of agreeing with it, but copying is far from essential. What matters is the process of being guided. An idea may help us deal, practically or intellectually, with a reality or things connected with it. If the idea does not frustrate our progress, it agrees sufficiently to meet the requirement. In short, the idea must fit and adapt our lives to the reality’s whole setting. It will hold true of that reality.

Thus, NAMES are just as 'true' or 'false' as definite mental pictures are. They set up similar verification-processes, and lead to fully equivalent practical results.

So, NAMES are just as 'true' or 'false' as clear mental images. Both lead to similar ways of checking their truth and to completely equivalent practical results.

All human thinking gets discursified; we exchange ideas; we lend and borrow verifications, get them from one another by means of social intercourse. All truth thus gets verbally built out, stored up, and made available for everyone. Hence, we must TALK consistently just as we must THINK consistently: for both in talk and thought we deal with kinds. Names are arbitrary, but once understood they must be kept to. We mustn't now call Abel 'Cain' or Cain 'Abel.' If we do, we ungear ourselves from the whole book of Genesis, and from all its connexions with the universe of speech and fact down to the present time. We throw ourselves out of whatever truth that entire system of speech and fact may embody.

All human thinking is put into words. We exchange ideas and share ways of verifying them through our interactions with one another. In this way, all truth is put into words, built up, stored, and made available to everyone. So we must TALK consistently, just as we must THINK consistently. In both speech and thought, we deal with kinds of things. Names are arbitrary, but once understood, we must keep using them consistently. We must not now call Abel 'Cain' or Cain 'Abel.' If we do, we disconnect ourselves from the whole book of Genesis. We also disconnect ourselves from all its connections to language and facts down to the present day. We cut ourselves off from whatever truth that entire system of language and facts may contain.

The overwhelming majority of our true ideas admit of no direct or face-to-face verification-those of past history, for example, as of Cain and Abel. The stream of time can be remounted only verbally, or verified indirectly by the present prolongations or effects of what the past harbored. Yet if they agree with these verbalities and effects, we can know that our ideas of the past are true. AS TRUE AS PAST TIME ITSELF WAS, so true was Julius Caesar, so true were antediluvian monsters, all in their proper dates and settings. That past time itself was, is guaranteed by its coherence with everything that's present. True as the present is, the past was also.

The overwhelming majority of our true ideas cannot be verified directly or firsthand. Take ideas about past history, for example, such as Cain and Abel. We can trace the course of time backward only through words. Or we can verify it indirectly through the present continuations or effects of what existed in the past. Yet if our ideas of the past agree with these accounts and effects, we can know they are true. AS TRUE AS PAST TIME ITSELF WAS, so true was Julius Caesar, and so true were the monsters before the Flood, each in their proper time and setting. We can be sure that past time itself existed because it fits with everything in the present. As surely as the present is real, the past was real too.

Agreement thus turns out to be essentially an affair of leading—leading that is useful because it is into quarters that contain objects that are important. True ideas lead us into useful verbal and conceptual quarters as well as directly up to useful sensible termini. They lead to consistency, stability and flowing human intercourse. They lead away from excentricity and isolation, from foiled and barren thinking. The untrammeled flowing of the leading-process, its general freedom from clash and contradiction, passes for its indirect verification; but all roads lead to Rome, and in the end and eventually, all true processes must lead to the face of directly verifying sensible experiences SOMEWHERE, which somebody's ideas have copied.

Agreement, then, is essentially a matter of being led. This leading is useful because it takes us to places containing important objects. True ideas lead us to useful words and concepts, as well as directly to useful things we can perceive. They lead to consistency, stability, and smooth human interaction. They lead us away from eccentricity and isolation, and from thinking that is frustrated and fruitless. When this process flows freely, generally without conflict or contradiction, that counts as indirect verification. But all roads lead to Rome. In the end, all true processes must lead SOMEWHERE to direct encounters with experiences that verify them, experiences that someone’s ideas have copied.

Such is the large loose way in which the pragmatist interprets the word agreement. He treats it altogether practically. He lets it cover any process of conduction from a present idea to a future terminus, provided only it run prosperously. It is only thus that 'scientific' ideas, flying as they do beyond common sense, can be said to agree with their realities. It is, as I have already said, as if reality were made of ether, atoms or electrons, but we mustn't think so literally. The term 'energy' doesn't even pretend to stand for anything 'objective.' It is only a way of measuring the surface of phenomena so as to string their changes on a simple formula.

This is the broad, loose way the pragmatist understands the word agreement. He treats it entirely as a practical matter. For him, agreement covers any process that leads from a present idea to a future result, provided the process goes well. Only in this sense can 'scientific' ideas be said to agree with their realities. After all, these ideas go beyond common sense. As I have already said, it is as if reality were made of ether, atoms or electrons. But we must not take this literally. The term 'energy' does not even claim to stand for anything 'objective.' It is only a way of measuring the surface of phenomena so that their changes fit a simple formula.

Yet in the choice of these man-made formulas we cannot be capricious with impunity any more than we can be capricious on the common-sense practical level. We must find a theory that will WORK; and that means something extremely difficult; for our theory must mediate between all previous truths and certain new experiences. It must derange common sense and previous belief as little as possible, and it must lead to some sensible terminus or other that can be verified exactly. To 'work' means both these things; and the squeeze is so tight that there is little loose play for any hypothesis. Our theories are wedged and controlled as nothing else is. Yet sometimes alternative theoretic formulas are equally compatible with all the truths we know, and then we choose between them for subjective reasons. We choose the kind of theory to which we are already partial; we follow 'elegance' or 'economy.' Clerk Maxwell somewhere says it would be "poor scientific taste" to choose the more complicated of two equally well-evidenced conceptions; and you will all agree with him. Truth in science is what gives us the maximum possible sum of satisfactions, taste included, but consistency both with previous truth and with novel fact is always the most imperious claimant.

Yet we cannot choose these human-made formulas on a whim without consequences. The same is true in everyday practical life. We must find a theory that will WORK. That is extremely difficult, because our theory must bring all previous truths into line with certain new experiences. It must disturb common sense and previous beliefs as little as possible. It must also lead to some observable result that can be verified exactly. To 'work' means both of these things. The constraints are so tight that there is little room for any hypothesis to vary. Our theories are constrained and controlled as nothing else is. Yet sometimes alternative theoretical formulas fit equally well with all the truths we know. In that case, we choose between them for subjective reasons. We choose the kind of theory we already favor. We follow 'elegance' or 'economy.' Clerk Maxwell says somewhere that it would be "poor scientific taste" to choose the more complicated of two equally well-supported ideas. You will all agree with him. Truth in science is what gives us the greatest possible total satisfaction, including satisfaction of taste. But consistency with both previous truth and new fact is always the most pressing demand.

I have led you through a very sandy desert. But now, if I may be allowed so vulgar an expression, we begin to taste the milk in the cocoanut. Our rationalist critics here discharge their batteries upon us, and to reply to them will take us out from all this dryness into full sight of a momentous philosophical alternative.

I have led you through a very sandy desert. But now, if I may use such a crude expression, we begin to taste the milk in the coconut. Here our rationalist critics fire their guns at us. Answering them will take us out of all this dryness and bring an important philosophical choice fully into view.

Our account of truth is an account of truths in the plural, of processes of leading, realized in rebus, and having only this quality in common, that they PAY. They pay by guiding us into or towards some part of a system that dips at numerous points into sense-percepts, which we may copy mentally or not, but with which at any rate we are now in the kind of commerce vaguely designated as verification. Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification-processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc., are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them. Truth is MADE, just as health, wealth and strength are made, in the course of experience.

Our account of truth concerns truths in the plural. It concerns processes that lead us onward and take place in actual things. These processes have only one quality in common: they PAY. They pay by guiding us into or toward some part of a system that connects at many points with what we perceive through our senses. We may or may not form mental copies of these perceptions. In any case, we now have the kind of interaction with them that we loosely call verification. For us, truth is simply a collective name for processes of verification. In the same way, health, wealth, strength, and so on are names for other processes connected with life. We also pursue these other processes because doing so pays. Truth is MADE in the course of experience, just as health, wealth, and strength are made.

Here rationalism is instantaneously up in arms against us. I can imagine a rationalist to talk as follows:

Here, rationalism immediately rises up against us. I can imagine a rationalist saying:

"Truth is not made," he will say; "it absolutely obtains, being a unique relation that does not wait upon any process, but shoots straight over the head of experience, and hits its reality every time. Our belief that yon thing on the wall is a clock is true already, altho no one in the whole history of the world should verify it. The bare quality of standing in that transcendent relation is what makes any thought true that possesses it, whether or not there be verification. You pragmatists put the cart before the horse in making truth's being reside in verification-processes. These are merely signs of its being, merely our lame ways of ascertaining after the fact, which of our ideas already has possessed the wondrous quality. The quality itself is timeless, like all essences and natures. Thoughts partake of it directly, as they partake of falsity or of irrelevancy. It can't be analyzed away into pragmatic consequences."

"Truth is not made," he will say. "It simply holds, as a unique relationship that depends on no process. It reaches straight over the head of experience and hits its reality every time. Our belief that the thing on the wall is a clock is already true, even if no one in the entire history of the world ever verifies it. A thought is true simply because it stands in that transcendent relationship, whether anyone verifies it or not. You pragmatists put the cart before the horse when you make truth depend on the process of verification. Verification processes are merely signs that truth exists. They are just our clumsy ways of finding out after the fact which ideas already possessed that wonderful quality. The quality itself is timeless, like all essences and natures. Thoughts possess it directly, just as they possess falsity or irrelevance. It cannot be explained away in terms of practical consequences."

The whole plausibility of this rationalist tirade is due to the fact to which we have already paid so much attention. In our world, namely, abounding as it does in things of similar kinds and similarly associated, one verification serves for others of its kind, and one great use of knowing things is to be led not so much to them as to their associates, especially to human talk about them. The quality of truth, obtaining ante rem, pragmatically means, then, the fact that in such a world innumerable ideas work better by their indirect or possible than by their direct and actual verification. Truth ante rem means only verifiability, then; or else it is a case of the stock rationalist trick of treating the NAME of a concrete phenomenal reality as an independent prior entity, and placing it behind the reality as its explanation. Professor Mach quotes somewhere an epigram of Lessing's:

The whole rationalist tirade seems plausible because of a fact we have already discussed at length. Our world is full of similar things that are associated in similar ways. So verifying one thing can stand in for verifying others like it. And one great use of knowing things is that it leads us less to the things themselves than to their associates, especially to what people say about them. In practical terms, then, truth that holds ante rem means this: in such a world, countless ideas work better through indirect or possible verification than through direct and actual verification. Truth ante rem means only that an idea can be verified. Otherwise, it is an example of the usual rationalist trick: treating the NAME of a concrete, observable reality as an independent entity that came before it. The rationalist then puts that entity behind the reality as its explanation. Professor Mach quotes an epigram by Lessing somewhere:

Sagt Hanschen Schlau zu Vetter Fritz, "Wie kommt es, Vetter Fritzen, Dass grad' die Reichsten in der Welt, Das meiste Geld besitzen?"

Hanschen Schlau says to his cousin Fritz, "Cousin Fritz, how is it that the richest people in the world have the most money?"

Hanschen Schlau here treats the principle 'wealth' as something distinct from the facts denoted by the man's being rich. It antedates them; the facts become only a sort of secondary coincidence with the rich man's essential nature.

Hanschen Schlau treats the principle of 'wealth' as separate from the facts that make a man rich. He treats the principle as coming before those facts. The facts then become merely a kind of secondary coincidence with the rich man's essential nature.

In the case of 'wealth' we all see the fallacy. We know that wealth is but a name for concrete processes that certain men's lives play a part in, and not a natural excellence found in Messrs. Rockefeller and Carnegie, but not in the rest of us.

When it comes to 'wealth', we all see the fallacy. We know that wealth is just a name for concrete processes in which certain men's lives play a part. It is not an innate excellence found in Messrs. Rockefeller and Carnegie but absent from the rest of us.

Like wealth, health also lives in rebus. It is a name for processes, as digestion, circulation, sleep, etc., that go on happily, tho in this instance we are more inclined to think of it as a principle and to say the man digests and sleeps so well BECAUSE he is so healthy.

Like wealth, health also exists in things. It is a name for processes that go well, such as digestion, circulation, and sleep. But in the case of health, we are more inclined to think of it as a principle. We say that a man digests food and sleeps so well BECAUSE he is so healthy.

With 'strength' we are, I think, more rationalistic still, and decidedly inclined to treat it as an excellence pre-existing in the man and explanatory of the herculean performances of his muscles.

With 'strength', I think we are even more rationalistic. We are certainly inclined to see strength as a quality already present in a man, one that explains his muscles' extraordinary feats.

With 'truth' most people go over the border entirely, and treat the rationalistic account as self-evident. But really all these words in TH are exactly similar. Truth exists ante rem just as much and as little as the other things do.

When it comes to 'truth', most people go all the way and treat the rationalist account as self-evident. But all these words in TH are really alike. Truth exists ante rem just as much and just as little as the other things do.

The scholastics, following Aristotle, made much of the distinction between habit and act. Health in actu means, among other things, good sleeping and digesting. But a healthy man need not always be sleeping, or always digesting, any more than a wealthy man need be always handling money, or a strong man always lifting weights. All such qualities sink to the status of 'habits' between their times of exercise; and similarly truth becomes a habit of certain of our ideas and beliefs in their intervals of rest from their verifying activities. But those activities are the root of the whole matter, and the condition of there being any habit to exist in the intervals.

The scholastics, following Aristotle, emphasized the distinction between habit and act. Health in actu, or health in action, means, among other things, sleeping and digesting well. But a healthy person need not always be sleeping or digesting. Likewise, a wealthy person need not always be handling money, or a strong person always lifting weights. All such qualities become 'habits' between the times when they are exercised. Similarly, truth becomes a habit of certain ideas and beliefs during the intervals between their activities of verification. But those activities are the root of the whole matter. They make it possible for any habit to exist during the intervals.

'The true,' to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as 'the right' is only the expedient in the way of our behaving. Expedient in almost any fashion; and expedient in the long run and on the whole of course; for what meets expediently all the experience in sight won't necessarily meet all farther experiences equally satisfactorily. Experience, as we know, has ways of BOILING OVER, and making us correct our present formulas.

To put it very briefly, 'the true' is simply what works in our thinking, just as 'the right' is what works in our behavior. What works can take almost any form. And of course, it must work in the long run and on the whole. For what works for all the experience we can now see may not work equally well for all future experience. As we know, experience has ways of BOILING OVER and making us correct our current formulas.

The 'absolutely' true, meaning what no farther experience will ever alter, is that ideal vanishing-point towards which we imagine that all our temporary truths will some day converge. It runs on all fours with the perfectly wise man, and with the absolutely complete experience; and, if these ideals are ever realized, they will all be realized together. Meanwhile we have to live to-day by what truth we can get to-day, and be ready to-morrow to call it falsehood. Ptolemaic astronomy, euclidean space, aristotelian logic, scholastic metaphysics, were expedient for centuries, but human experience has boiled over those limits, and we now call these things only relatively true, or true within those borders of experience. 'Absolutely' they are false; for we know that those limits were casual, and might have been transcended by past theorists just as they are by present thinkers.

The 'absolutely' true means what no future experience will ever change. It is the ideal vanishing point toward which we imagine all our temporary truths will someday come together. It belongs with the ideal of the perfectly wise person and the ideal of absolutely complete experience. If these ideals are ever realized, they will all be realized together. Meanwhile, we must live today by whatever truth we can find today. We must also be ready tomorrow to call it false. Ptolemaic astronomy, Euclidean space, Aristotelian logic, and scholastic metaphysics were useful for centuries. But human experience has overflowed those limits. We now call these ideas only relatively true, or true within those boundaries of experience. 'Absolutely' they are false. For we know that those limits were accidental. Past theorists could have gone beyond them, just as present thinkers do.

When new experiences lead to retrospective judgments, using the past tense, what these judgments utter WAS true, even tho no past thinker had been led there. We live forwards, a Danish thinker has said, but we understand backwards. The present sheds a backward light on the world's previous processes. They may have been truth-processes for the actors in them. They are not so for one who knows the later revelations of the story.

When new experiences lead us to judge the past, what we say WAS true, even if no earlier thinker reached that judgment. As a Danish thinker said, we live forward but understand backward. The present sheds light on the world's earlier processes. For those involved, these processes may have been leading toward truth. But they are not truth-processes for someone who knows what the story later reveals.

This regulative notion of a potential better truth to be established later, possibly to be established some day absolutely, and having powers of retroactive legislation, turns its face, like all pragmatist notions, towards concreteness of fact, and towards the future. Like the half-truths, the absolute truth will have to be MADE, made as a relation incidental to the growth of a mass of verification-experience, to which the half-true ideas are all along contributing their quota.

This guiding idea is that a better truth may be established later, perhaps even an absolute truth someday. Such a truth would have the power to legislate retroactively. Like all pragmatist ideas, this one looks toward concrete facts and the future. Like half-truths, absolute truth will have to be MADE. It will be made as a relation that arises as a body of verifying experience grows. All the while, half-true ideas contribute their share to that growing body of experience.

I have already insisted on the fact that truth is made largely out of previous truths. Men's beliefs at any time are so much experience funded. But the beliefs are themselves parts of the sum total of the world's experience, and become matter, therefore, for the next day's funding operations. So far as reality means experienceable reality, both it and the truths men gain about it are everlastingly in process of mutation-mutation towards a definite goal, it may be—but still mutation.

I have already stressed that truth is largely made from earlier truths. People’s beliefs at any given time are accumulated experience. But those beliefs are themselves part of the world’s total experience. So they become material for the next day’s accumulation. As far as reality means what we can experience, both reality and the truths people learn about it are always changing. The change may be moving toward a definite goal, but it is still change.

Mathematicians can solve problems with two variables. On the Newtonian theory, for instance, acceleration varies with distance, but distance also varies with acceleration. In the realm of truth-processes facts come independently and determine our beliefs provisionally. But these beliefs make us act, and as fast as they do so, they bring into sight or into existence new facts which re-determine the beliefs accordingly. So the whole coil and ball of truth, as it rolls up, is the product of a double influence. Truths emerge from facts; but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth (the word is indifferent) and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not TRUE. They simply ARE. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them.

Mathematicians can solve problems involving two variables. In Newtonian theory, for example, acceleration varies with distance, but distance also varies with acceleration. In the process of arriving at truth, facts come independently and determine our beliefs for the time being. But these beliefs lead us to act. As we act, we discover or bring about new facts that reshape our beliefs. So the whole ball of truth, as it rolls up, is shaped by both influences. Truths emerge from facts, but they reach forward into facts again and add to them. These facts in turn create or reveal new truth (it makes no difference which word we use). And so the process continues indefinitely. Meanwhile, the 'facts' themselves are not TRUE. They simply ARE. Truth is a function of the beliefs that begin and end among facts.

The case is like a snowball's growth, due as it is to the distribution of the snow on the one hand, and to the successive pushes of the boys on the other, with these factors co-determining each other incessantly.

The case is like a snowball growing. Its growth depends both on how the snow is distributed and on the boys' successive pushes. These factors continually influence each other.

The most fateful point of difference between being a rationalist and being a pragmatist is now fully in sight. Experience is in mutation, and our psychological ascertainments of truth are in mutation—so much rationalism will allow; but never that either reality itself or truth itself is mutable. Reality stands complete and ready-made from all eternity, rationalism insists, and the agreement of our ideas with it is that unique unanalyzable virtue in them of which she has already told us. As that intrinsic excellence, their truth has nothing to do with our experiences. It adds nothing to the content of experience. It makes no difference to reality itself; it is supervenient, inert, static, a reflexion merely. It doesn't EXIST, it HOLDS or OBTAINS, it belongs to another dimension from that of either facts or fact-relations, belongs, in short, to the epistemological dimension—and with that big word rationalism closes the discussion.

The most consequential difference between rationalism and pragmatism is now fully clear. Experience changes, and so do our psychological assessments of what is true. Rationalism allows this much, but it never allows that reality itself or truth itself can change. Rationalism insists that reality has always existed, complete and ready-made. Our ideas agree with reality through a unique quality that cannot be analyzed, as rationalism has already told us. Because truth is an inherent excellence of our ideas, it has nothing to do with our experiences. It adds nothing to the content of experience and makes no difference to reality itself. It is an added quality, inert and static, a mere reflection. It does not EXIST. It HOLDS or OBTAINS. It belongs to a different dimension from facts or relations between facts. In short, it belongs to the epistemological dimension. And with that big word, rationalism closes the discussion.

Thus, just as pragmatism faces forward to the future, so does rationalism here again face backward to a past eternity. True to her inveterate habit, rationalism reverts to 'principles,' and thinks that when an abstraction once is named, we own an oracular solution.

So, just as pragmatism looks forward to the future, rationalism once again looks backward to a past eternity. As always, rationalism returns to 'principles.' It thinks that naming an abstraction gives us an answer as profound as an oracle's.

The tremendous pregnancy in the way of consequences for life of this radical difference of outlook will only become apparent in my later lectures. I wish meanwhile to close this lecture by showing that rationalism's sublimity does not save it from inanity.

The enormous consequences of this radical difference in outlook for our lives will become clear only in my later lectures. For now, I want to close this lecture by showing that rationalism’s grandeur does not keep it from being empty.

When, namely, you ask rationalists, instead of accusing pragmatism of desecrating the notion of truth, to define it themselves by saying exactly what THEY understand by it, the only positive attempts I can think of are these two:

Ask rationalists to define truth themselves, instead of accusing pragmatism of disrespecting the idea of truth. When asked exactly what they mean by truth, I can think of only two clear attempts they have made:

1. "Truth is just the system of propositions which have an un-conditional claim to be recognized as valid."⁹

1. "Truth is simply the system of statements that have an unconditional claim to be recognized as valid."⁹

2. Truth is a name for all those judgments which we find ourselves under obligation to make by a kind of imperative duty.¹⁰

2. Truth is a name for all the judgments we feel compelled to make by a kind of duty.¹⁰

The first thing that strikes one in such definitions is their unutterable triviality. They are absolutely true, of course, but absolutely insignificant until you handle them pragmatically. What do you mean by 'claim' here, and what do you mean by 'duty'? As summary names for the concrete reasons why thinking in true ways is overwhelmingly expedient and good for mortal men, it is all right to talk of claims on reality's part to be agreed with, and of obligations on our part to agree. We feel both the claims and the obligations, and we feel them for just those reasons.

The first thing that strikes you about such definitions is how utterly trivial they are. They are absolutely true, of course, but absolutely insignificant until you approach them pragmatically. What do you mean by 'claim' here, and what do you mean by 'duty'? It is fine to say that reality has a claim to our agreement and that we have an obligation to agree. These are shorthand for the concrete reasons why thinking truthfully is overwhelmingly useful and good for human beings. We feel both the claims and the obligations for exactly those reasons.

But the rationalists who talk of claim and obligation EXPRESSLY SAY THAT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR PRACTICAL INTERESTS OR PERSONAL REASONS. Our reasons for agreeing are psychological facts, they say, relative to each thinker, and to the accidents of his life. They are his evidence merely, they are no part of the life of truth itself. That life transacts itself in a purely logical or epistemological, as distinguished from a psychological, dimension, and its claims antedate and exceed all personal motivations whatsoever. Tho neither man nor God should ever ascertain truth, the word would still have to be defined as that which OUGHT to be ascertained and recognized.

But rationalists who speak of claims and obligations EXPRESSLY SAY THAT THESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR PRACTICAL INTERESTS OR PERSONAL REASONS. They say our reasons for agreeing are psychological facts, depending on each thinker and the accidents of that person’s life. These reasons are only the thinker’s evidence. They are no part of the life of truth itself. The life of truth unfolds in a purely logical or epistemological dimension, not a psychological one. Its claims come before and go beyond all personal motivations whatsoever. Even if neither humans nor God ever discovered the truth, truth would still have to be defined as what OUGHT to be discovered and recognized.

There never was a more exquisite example of an idea abstracted from the concretes of experience and then used to oppose and negate what it was abstracted from.

There has never been a finer example of an idea drawn from concrete experiences, then used to oppose and deny those experiences.

Philosophy and common life abound in similar instances. The 'sentimentalist fallacy' is to shed tears over abstract justice and generosity, beauty, etc., and never to know these qualities when you meet them in the street, because there the circumstances make them vulgar. Thus I read in the privately printed biography of an eminently rationalistic mind: "It was strange that with such admiration for beauty in the abstract, my brother had no enthusiasm for fine architecture, for beautiful painting, or for flowers." And in almost the last philosophic work I have read, I find such passages as the following: "Justice is ideal, solely ideal. Reason conceives that it ought to exist, but experience shows that it can-not. ... Truth, which ought to be, cannot be. ... Reason is deformed by experience. As soon as reason enters experience, it becomes contrary to reason."

Philosophy and everyday life are full of similar examples. The 'sentimentalist fallacy' is to weep over abstract justice, generosity, beauty, and so on. Yet you never recognize these qualities when you meet them in the street, because their surroundings make them seem vulgar. For example, I read this in the privately printed biography of an eminently rationalistic thinker: "It was strange that my brother admired beauty in the abstract so much. Yet he had no enthusiasm for fine architecture, beautiful paintings, or flowers." And in one of the most recent works of philosophy I have read, I find passages like this: "Justice is an ideal, nothing more. Reason conceives that justice ought to exist, but experience shows that it cannot. ... Truth, which ought to exist, cannot exist. ... Experience distorts reason. As soon as reason enters experience, it becomes contrary to reason."

The rationalist's fallacy here is exactly like the sentimentalist's. Both extract a quality from the muddy particulars of experience, and find it so pure when extracted that they contrast it with each and all its muddy instances as an opposite and higher nature. All the while it is THEIR nature. It is the nature of truths to be validated, verified. It pays for our ideas to be validated. Our obligation to seek truth is part of our general obligation to do what pays. The payments true ideas bring are the sole why of our duty to follow them.

The rationalist's mistake here is exactly like the sentimentalist's. Both take a quality out of the messy details of experience. Once isolated, the quality seems so pure that they contrast it with every messy instance of it. They see the quality as something opposite to and higher than all those instances. Yet all along, it is the nature of those very instances. Truths, by their nature, are validated and verified. It benefits us to have our ideas validated. Our duty to seek truth is part of our general duty to do what benefits us. The benefits that true ideas bring are the only reason we have a duty to follow them.

Identical whys exist in the case of wealth and health. Truth makes no other kind of claim and imposes no other kind of ought than health and wealth do. All these claims are conditional; the concrete benefits we gain are what we mean by calling the pursuit a duty. In the case of truth, untrue beliefs work as perniciously in the long run as true beliefs work beneficially. Talking abstractly, the quality 'true' may thus be said to grow absolutely precious, and the quality 'untrue' absolutely damnable: the one may be called good, the other bad, unconditionally. We ought to think the true, we ought to shun the false, imperatively.

The same questions of why apply to wealth and health. Truth makes no different kind of claim or demand on us than health and wealth do. All these claims are conditional. When we call the pursuit of truth, health, or wealth a duty, we mean the concrete benefits we gain. In the long run, false beliefs do as much harm as true beliefs do good. Speaking abstractly, we may therefore say that the quality of being 'true' becomes absolutely precious. The quality of being 'untrue' becomes absolutely damnable. We may call the one good and the other bad, without qualification. We must think what is true. We must avoid what is false.

But if we treat all this abstraction literally and oppose it to its mother soil in experience, see what a preposterous position we work ourselves into.

But if we take all this abstraction literally and set it against the experience it grew from, we end up in a ridiculous position.

We cannot then take a step forward in our actual thinking. When shall I acknowledge this truth and when that? Shall the acknowledgment be loud?—or silent? If sometimes loud, sometimes silent, which NOW? When may a truth go into cold-storage in the encyclopedia? and when shall it come out for battle? Must I constantly be repeating the truth 'twice two are four' because of its eternal claim on recognition? or is it sometimes irrelevant? Must my thoughts dwell night and day on my personal sins and blemishes, because I truly have them?—or may I sink and ignore them in order to be a decent social unit, and not a mass of morbid melancholy and apology?

Then we cannot take a single step forward in our actual thinking. When should I acknowledge one truth, and when another? Should I acknowledge it aloud or silently? If sometimes aloud and sometimes silently, which should I do NOW? When can a truth be put into cold storage in an encyclopedia? When should it be brought out for battle? Must I keep repeating the truth 'twice two are four' because it eternally demands recognition? Or is it sometimes irrelevant? Must I dwell night and day on my personal sins and flaws because I truly have them? Or may I set them aside and ignore them so I can be a decent member of society, rather than a mass of unhealthy gloom and apology?

It is quite evident that our obligation to acknowledge truth, so far from being unconditional, is tremendously conditioned. Truth with a big T, and in the singular, claims abstractly to be recognized, of course; but concrete truths in the plural need be recognized only when their recognition is expedient. A truth must always be preferred to a falsehood when both relate to the situation; but when neither does, truth is as little of a duty as falsehood. If you ask me what o'clock it is and I tell you that I live at 95 Irving Street, my answer may indeed be true, but you don't see why it is my duty to give it. A false address would be as much to the purpose.

It is quite clear that our duty to acknowledge truth is far from unconditional. It depends greatly on the circumstances. Truth with a capital T, understood as one thing, of course claims recognition in the abstract. But particular truths need to be recognized only when doing so is useful. Truth must always be preferred to falsehood when both are relevant to the situation. But when neither is relevant, we have no more duty to tell the truth than to tell a falsehood. If you ask me what time it is and I tell you that I live at 95 Irving Street, my answer may be true. But you cannot see why I have a duty to give it. A false address would serve the purpose just as well.

With this admission that there are conditions that limit the application of the abstract imperative, THE PRAGMATISTIC TREATMENT OF TRUTH SWEEPS BACK UPON US IN ITS FULNESS. Our duty to agree with reality is seen to be grounded in a perfect jungle of concrete expediencies.

Once we admit that conditions limit how the abstract imperative applies, THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO TRUTH RETURNS IN FULL FORCE. We can see that our duty to agree with reality is rooted in a whole jungle of practical considerations.

When Berkeley had explained what people meant by matter, people thought that he denied matter's existence. When Messrs. Schiller and Dewey now explain what people mean by truth, they are accused of denying ITS existence. These pragmatists destroy all objective standards, critics say, and put foolishness and wisdom on one level. A favorite formula for describing Mr. Schiller's doctrines and mine is that we are persons who think that by saying whatever you find it pleasant to say and calling it truth you fulfil every pragmatistic requirement.

When Berkeley explained what people meant by matter, they thought he was denying that matter existed. Now, when Schiller and Dewey explain what people mean by truth, they are accused of denying that truth exists. Critics say these pragmatists destroy all objective standards and put foolishness and wisdom on the same level. A favorite way of describing Schiller’s views and mine is to say that we think you can meet every pragmatist requirement simply by saying whatever pleases you and calling it true.

I leave it to you to judge whether this be not an impudent slander. Pent in, as the pragmatist more than anyone else sees himself to be, between the whole body of funded truths squeezed from the past and the coercions of the world of sense about him, who so well as he feels the immense pressure of objective control under which our minds perform their operations? If anyone imagines that this law is lax, let him keep its commandment one day, says Emerson. We have heard much of late of the uses of the imagination in science. It is high time to urge the use of a little imagination in philosophy. The unwillingness of some of our critics to read any but the silliest of possible meanings into our statements is as discreditable to their imaginations as anything I know in recent philosophic history. Schiller says the true is that which 'works.' Thereupon he is treated as one who limits verification to the lowest material utilities. Dewey says truth is what gives 'satisfaction.' He is treated as one who believes in calling everything true which, if it were true, would be pleasant.

I leave it to you to judge whether this is not a shameless slander. The pragmatist sees himself as hemmed in more than anyone else. On one side is the whole body of established truths gathered from the past. On the other are the constraints imposed by the world of the senses. Who, then, feels more keenly the immense pressure of objective control under which our minds work? As Emerson says, if anyone thinks this law is easy to obey, let him obey it for one day. Lately, we have heard much about the uses of imagination in science. It is high time we urged the use of a little imagination in philosophy. Some of our critics refuse to read anything but the silliest possible meanings into our statements. This reflects as badly on their imaginations as anything I know in recent philosophical history. Schiller says the true is that which 'works.' He is then treated as someone who limits verification to the most basic material benefits. Dewey says truth is what gives 'satisfaction.' He is treated as someone who would call anything true if it would be pleasant for it to be true.

Our critics certainly need more imagination of realities. I have honestly tried to stretch my own imagination and to read the best possible meaning into the rationalist conception, but I have to confess that it still completely baffles me. The notion of a reality calling on us to 'agree' with it, and that for no reasons, but simply because its claim is 'unconditional' or 'transcendent,' is one that I can make neither head nor tail of. I try to imagine myself as the sole reality in the world, and then to imagine what more I would 'claim' if I were allowed to. If you suggest the possibility of my claiming that a mind should come into being from out of the void inane and stand and COPY me, I can indeed imagine what the copying might mean, but I can conjure up no motive. What good it would do me to be copied, or what good it would do that mind to copy me, if farther consequences are expressly and in principle ruled out as motives for the claim (as they are by our rationalist authorities) I cannot fathom. When the Irishman's admirers ran him along to the place of banquet in a sedan chair with no bottom, he said, "Faith, if it wasn't for the honor of the thing, I might as well have come on foot." So here: but for the honor of the thing, I might as well have remained uncopied. Copying is one genuine mode of knowing (which for some strange reason our contemporary transcendentalists seem to be tumbling over each other to repudiate); but when we get beyond copying, and fall back on unnamed forms of agreeing that are expressly denied to be either copyings or leadings or fittings, or any other processes pragmatically definable, the WHAT of the 'agreement' claimed becomes as unintelligible as the why of it. Neither content nor motive can be imagined for it. It is an absolutely meaningless abstraction.¹¹

Our critics certainly need more imagination about realities. I have honestly tried to stretch my own imagination and give the rationalist view the best possible interpretation. But I must confess that it still completely baffles me. I cannot make any sense of the idea that reality calls on us to 'agree' with it for no reason. Supposedly, we must agree simply because reality's claim is 'unconditional' or 'transcendent.' I try to imagine that I am the only reality in the world. Then I try to imagine what more I would 'claim' if I could. Suppose you suggest that I might claim that a mind should emerge from the empty void and stand there and COPY me. I can imagine what the copying might mean, but I cannot imagine any motive for it. I cannot understand what good being copied would do me, or what good copying me would do that mind. This is so if further consequences are expressly ruled out, in principle, as motives for the claim. Our rationalist authorities do rule them out. When the Irishman's admirers rushed him to the banquet in a sedan chair with no bottom, he said, "Faith, if it wasn't for the honor of the thing, I might as well have come on foot." The same applies here: if not for the honor of the thing, I might as well have remained uncopied. Copying is one genuine way of knowing. For some strange reason, our contemporary transcendentalists seem to be falling over each other to reject it. But suppose we go beyond copying and fall back on unnamed forms of agreement. These are expressly said not to be copying, leading, fitting, or any other process that can be defined in pragmatic terms. Then the WHAT of the claimed 'agreement' becomes as impossible to understand as the why. We can imagine neither what the agreement involves nor what motive there is for it. It is an absolutely meaningless abstraction.¹¹

Surely in this field of truth it is the pragmatists and not the rationalists who are the more genuine defenders of the universe's rationality.

Surely, when it comes to truth, pragmatists defend the universe's rationality more genuinely than rationalists do.