Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 23, 2025
The universe is a system of which the individual members may relax their anxieties occasionally, in which the don't-care mood is also right for men, and moral holidays in order that, if I mistake not, is part, at least, of what the Absolute is 'known-as, that is the great difference in our particular experiences which his being true makes for us, that is part of his cash-value when he is pragmatically interpreted.
And its various manners of being one suggest, for their accurate ascertainment, so many distinct programs of scientific work. Thus the pragmatic question 'What is the oneness known-as? What practical difference will it make? saves us from all feverish excitement over it as a principle of sublimity and carries us forward into the stream of experience with a cool head.
If they would only follow the pragmatic method and ask: 'What is truth KNOWN-AS? What does its existence stand for in the way of concrete goods? they would see that the name of it is the inbegriff of almost everything that is valuable in our lives.
Shadworth Hodgson keeps insisting that realities are only what they are 'known-as. But these forerunners of pragmatism used it in fragments: they were preluders only. Not until in our time has it generalized itself, become conscious of a universal mission, pretended to a conquering destiny. I believe in that destiny, and I hope I may end by inspiring you with my belief.
What it is 'known-as' is what there appears. The experiencer of such a situation possesses all that the idea contains.
Granting the oneness to exist, what facts will be different in consequence? What will the unity be known-as? The world is one yes, but HOW one? What is the practical value of the oneness for US? Asking such questions, we pass from the vague to the definite, from the abstract to the concrete. Many distinct ways in which oneness predicated of the universe might make a difference, come to view.
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. This thesis is what I have to defend.
But now what do we mean by POINTING, in such a case as this? What is the pointing known-as, here? To this question I shall have to give a very prosaic answer one that traverses the pre-possessions not only of common sense and scholasticism, but also those of nearly all the epistemological writers whom I have ever read.
Exactly what do we MEAN by saying that we here know the tigers? What is the precise fact that the cognition so confidently claimed is KNOWN-AS, to use Shadworth Hodgson's inelegant but valuable form of words?
What would the self-transcendency affirmed to exist in advance of all experiential mediation or termination, be KNOWN-AS? What would it practically result in for US, were it true? Where direct acquaintance is lacking, 'knowledge about' is the next best thing, and an acquaintance with what actually lies about the 'object, and is most closely related to it, puts such knowledge within our grasp.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking