New-York tribune., 1909-12-25
Professor James on the Mean
ing of Truth.

fraEmatiSn. BY William James. eNo'
pp. XNiL eS- LonGmans, Green q co.
In his former treatise Professor Will
lam James had 10 do with pragmatism
IN its length and breadth, not with iis
theory ~ truth merely. but with Its
worth as a tendency IN modern meta
physical disputes. the happy opposite 81
rstionalism and stubborn protestant
against "closed system" monistic view
OF the universe one chapter. however,
was devoted 10 the defence 81 the
suthor's fellow praematists, Dr. =. G. :.
Schiller. Of oxford. and Professor John
Dewey. ina their account 81 tho truth
rclsfion. and this cNpiication and defence
Was undertaken precisely because the
Schiller Dewey view of truth had been
80 ferociousiy attacked and - abom-
inahly misunderstood Far from as
suaginE controversy. the Harvard prag-
natisi's contribution. his clear and
simple statement" has seemed rather 10
pour oil on tho troubled flames. for i'm the
brisk discussion that has intervened his
evn setting forth of the truth notion has
been supported by few critics, and II has
been secuted by many. The conclusion
20 be derived is that under it's apparent
simplicity the subject is a hard one for
non-pragmatists t0 understand. He
SAYS:
Nv failure An making converts 20 my con-
ception ~ truth seems. II ] may Judge ny
Whist hear on conversation, almost com,
Sishearfened. and a common ch0leric sin
ner would curse God and die, after such
reception. But instead ~ taking counsel 81
n h hold Nrarr n -
msnts. in tho faint hope that repeated drop
pings may wear upon the stone, sha Iilat @
my formulas may seem less obscure N sur.
rounded M something more of mass,
whereby 90 appsrceive them
Thus, In The Meaning Of Truth" our
Euthor comes back % treat specifically
What Is 81 the pith ~ the pragmatist
contention. and he is the more ready 10
d. 50 because Of his belief that the de-
fnitive settlement Of the debate would
mark a turning point IN the history of
epistemology and consequently IN that
az general philosophy. The book brings
together an the past work of the authors
psn bearing directly on the truth ques-
tion and includes papers replying 20 de-
tailed criticisms.
starting with the unchanengod defini-
iion of truth as the agreement Of our
sdeas with reality. reality" being posted
90 as 10 avoid any purely metaphysical
discussion respecting h. the question is
raised az 20 the meaning of the term
agreement" The popular notion is that
. true idea must copy its reality, and our
true ideas of sensible things do indeed
copy them. You shut your eyes and
-. ~ ~
Get just such a true picture or copy ~
its dial. But, asks Dr. James, whore our
ideas cannot copy definitely their object.
What does agreement with that object
lnesne Here prsgmstism plies its char
acteristic test: Grant an idea or belief
20 he true. what concrete difference will
St. being true make IN any ones actual
life How viii tho truth be realized
What experiences viii be different from
those which would obtain il the belief
were false What In short. is the truths
cash value In experimental terms True
ideas are those that we can assimiate,
validate. Corroboratc and verify. False
idcas are those We cannot. 'rhe true, 20
put il very briefly. is only the eXpedieut
IN the way Of our thinking just as the
right IL only the eNpedient i'm our way of
behaving"
Plain and earthly as such a portrayal
may seem in the eyes Of an intellectual
ST dcvotce of Truth as a supernatural
imperative. the account sticks 10 de-
scrip;ion. aud whatever the genesis of
truth may he we are compelled 10 make
its acquaintance through the humble
means % its workings. The knowing
~ percept by an idea is an event. all
tnsido the tissue Of experience. KnOWl-
rdgc 81 sensible realities IS made by re-
lstions that unron themselves in time.
Vow, there are TWO WAYS Of knowing
things. says our author Such things as
tho white paper before our eyes can be
known iutuitycly; most ~ the things
No know. the tigers now in India. for
instance are known only representative
~ or ssmbohcslly. In the latter. con-
"eptusl type. exactly what do we mean
by saying that We here know the tigers?
A. the very least people would say that
what We mean by knowing the tigers is
mentally pointing toward them as We
OF here. and in such process there is
N'tAatiAb Nle NA'i t'N0- ~ @ehANA NNAANAtA-
ncs.
Tie pointing ~ our thought 10 the tigers
a. known simply and solely a. procession
af mental associates and motor conse-
auences that follow on the thought. and
shat would lead tremendously II followed
out. into some ideal or real contest. or even
lDso the immediate presence Of the tigers.
n Is even known, ~ We take the
tlFcrs very seriously, as actions of ours
Etlch may terminate in directly intuite6
eftrs, they would ~ Ne took a voyage
90 India Tor the purpose Of tiger hunting
and brought back a lot Of the skins Of the
ftriped rasCals which we had laid low. In
sn this there o. no sclf-transccndency in
our mental images taken by themselves
They are one phenomenal TACT the tigers
ere another. and the pointing 90 the tigers
s. a perfectly commonplace experimental
relation. N YOU once grant connecting
world 10 he there.
Granting the tigers in India those
sleek veterans by now that. ever since
professor Jsmes's presidential address
before the American Psychological Asso-
ciation. have served so well 10 tighten
many prentice mind) and understand
sng that cognition whenever taken con-
cretely means ''determinate ambulation.
through Intermediates. from a terminus
9 guO 10. or toward, a terminus Gd QHcm,' -
there remain the more august interests
az truth 10 be considered What. We
may ask. Of the ideal interests. the 5ruth
that abides though we disappear: is the