ufts, _Phil. Rev._, Vol. VI, which
deserves to rank as one of the early documents of the "experimental"
movement.
[14] Cf. "The Definition of the Psychical," G. H. Mead, _Decennial
Publications of the University of Chicago_.
[15] Cf. _The Logic of Hegel-Wallace_, p. 117.
[16] _Bosanquet's Logic_, 2nd Ed., p. 171. The identification of
induction and procedure by hypothesis occurs on p. 156.
[17] _Ibid._, p. 14 (italics mine).
[18] Perhaps the most complete exhibition of the breakdown of formal
logic considered as an account of the operation of thought apart from
its subject-matter is to be found in Schiller's _Formal Logic_.
[19] Cf. Stuart on "Valuation as a Logical Process" in _Studies in
Logical Theory_.
[20] _The New Realism_, pp. 40-41.
[21] Cf. Montague, pp. 256-57; also Russell, _The Problems of_
_Philosophy_, pp. 27-65-66, _et passim_; and Holt's _Concept of
Consciousness_, pp. 14ff., discussed below.
[22] Cf. Angell, "Relations of Psychology to Philosophy," _Decennial
Publications of University of Chicago_, Vol. III; also Castro, "The
Respective Standpoints of Psychology and Logic," _Philosophic Studies,
University of Chicago_, No. 4.
[23] I am here following, in the main, Professor Holt because he alone
appears to have had the courage to develop the full consequences of the
premises of analytic logic.
[24] _The Concept of Consciousness_, pp. 14-15.
[25] It is interesting to compare this onlooking act with the account of
consciousness further on. As "psychological" this act of onlooking must
be an act of consciousness. But consciousness is a cross-section or a
projection of things made by their interaction with a nervous system.
Here consciousness is a function of all the interacting factors. It is
in the play. It _is_ the play. It is not in a spectator's box. How can
consciousness be a function of all the things put into the cross-section
and yet be a mere beholder of the process? Moreover, what is it that
makes any particular, spectacle, or cross-section "logical"? If it be
said all are "logical" what significance has the term?
[26] Cf. Russell's _Scientific Methods in Philosophy_, p. 59.
[27] Holt, _op. cit._, pp. 128-30.
[28] In fact, Newton, in all probability, had the Cartesian pure notions
in mind.
[29] Holt, _op. cit._, p. 118 (italics mine). Cf. also Perry's _Present
Philosophical Tendencies_, pp. 108 and 311.
[30] The character of elements and the nature of simpli
|