in universal
and impersonal terms, the truer heirs of Science we become.

In spite of the appeal which this impersonality of the scientific
attitude makes to a certain magnanimity of temper, I believe it to be
shallow, and I can now state my reason in comparatively few words.
That reason is that, so long as we deal with the cosmic and the
general, we deal only with the symbols of reality, but as soon as we
deal with private and personal phenomena as such, we deal with
realities in the completest sense of the term. I think I can easily
make clear what I mean by these words.

The world of our experience consists at all times of two parts, an
objective and a subjective part, of which the former may be
incalculably more extensive than the latter, and yet the latter can
never be omitted or suppressed. The objective part is the sum total of
whatsoever at any given time we may be thinking of, the subjective part
is the inner "state" in which the thinking comes to pass. What we
think of may be enormous--the cosmic times and spaces, for example--
whereas the inner state may be the most fugitive and paltry activity of
mind. Yet the cosmic objects, so far as the experience yields them,
are but ideal pictures of something whose existence we do not inwardly
possess but only point at outwardly, while the inner state is our very
experience itself; its reality and that of our experience are one. A
conscious field PLUS its object as felt or thought of PLUS an attitude
towards the object PLUS the sense of a self to whom the attitude
belongs--such a concrete bit of personal experience may be a small bit,
but it is a solid bit as long as it lasts; not hollow, not a mere
abstract element of experience, such as the "object" is when taken all
alone. It is a FULL fact, even though it be an insignificant fact; it
is of the KIND to which all realities whatsoever must belong; the motor
currents of the world run through the like of it; it is on the line
connecting real events with real events. That unsharable feeling which
each one of us has of the pinch of his individual destiny as he
privately feels it rolling out on fortune's wheel may be disparaged for
its egotism, may be sneered at as unscientific, but it is the one thing
that fills up the measure of our concrete actuality, and any would-be
existent that should lack such a feeling, or its analogue, would be a
piece of reality only half made up.[336]

[336] Compare Lotze's doctrine