Produced by Adrian Mastronardi, Martin Pettit and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
CORNELL STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY
No. 11
JOHN DEWEY'S LOGICAL THEORY
BY
DELTON THOMAS HOWARD, A.M.
FORMERLY FELLOW IN THE SAGE SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY
A THESIS
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
CORNELL UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
NEW YORK
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
1919
PRESS OF
THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY
LANCASTER, PA.
PREFACE
It seems unnecessary to offer an apology for an historical treatment of
Professor Dewey's logical theories, since functionalism glories in the
genetic method. To be sure, certain more extreme radicals are opposed to
a genetic interpretation of the history of human thought, but this is
inconsistent. At any rate, the historical method employed in the
following study may escape censure by reason of its simple character,
for it is little more than a critical review of Professor Dewey's
writings in their historical order, with no discussion of influences and
connections, and with little insistence upon rigid lines of development.
It is proposed to "follow the lead of the subject-matter" as far as
possible; to discover what topics interested Professor Dewey, how he
dealt with them, and what conclusions he arrived at. This plan has an
especial advantage when applied to a body of doctrine which, like
Professor Dewey's, does not possess a systematic form of its own, since
it avoids the distortion which a more rigid method would be apt to
produce.
It has not been possible, within the limits of the present study, to
take note of all of Professor Dewey's writings, and no reference has
been made to some which are of undoubted interest and importance. Among
these may be mentioned especially his books and papers on educational
topics and a number of his ethical writings. Attention has been devoted
almost exclusively to those writings which have some important bearing
upon his logical theory. The division into chapters is partly arbitrary,
although the periods indicated are quite clearly marked by the different
directions which Professor Dewey's interests took from time to time. It
will be seen that there is considerable chance for error in
distinguishing between the important and the unimportant, and in
selecting the essays which lie in the natural line of the author's
development. But, _valeat quantum_, as William James would say.
The criticisms and comments which have been made from time to time, as
seemed appropriate, may be considered pertinent or irrelevant according
to the views of the reader. It is hoped that they are not entirely
aside from the mark, and that they do not interfere with a fair
presentation of the author's views. The last chapter is devoted to a
direct criticism of Professor Dewey's functionalism, with some comments
on the general nature of philosophical method.
Since this thesis was written, Professor Dewey has published two or
three books and numerous articles, which are perhaps more important than
any of his previous writings. The volume of _Essays in Experimental
Logic_ (1916) is a distinct advance upon _The Influence of Darwin on
Philosophy and Other Essays_, published six years earlier. Most of these
essays, however, are considered here in their original form, and the new
material, while interesting, presents no vital change of standpoint. It
might be well to call attention to the excellent introductory essay
which Professor Dewey has provided for this new volume. Some mention
might also be made of the volume of essays by eight representative
pragmatists, which appeared last year (1917) under the title, _Creative
Intelligence_. My comments on Professor Dewey's contribution to the
volume have been printed elsewhere.[1] It has not seemed necessary, in
the absence of significant developments, to extend the thesis beyond its
original limits, and it goes to press, therefore, substantially as
written two years ago.
I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the faculty of the Sage
School of Philosophy for many valuable suggestions and kindly
encouragement in the course of my work. I am most deeply indebted to
Professor Ernest Albee for his patient guidance and helpful criticism.
Many of his suggestions, both as to plan and detail, have been adopted
and embodied in the thesis, and these have contributed materially to
such logical coherence and technical accuracy as it may possess. The
particular views expressed are, of course, my own. I wish also to thank
Professor J. E. Creighton especially for his friendly interest and for
many suggestions which assisted the progress of my work, as well as for
his kindness in looking over the proofs.
D. T. HOWARD.
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS,
June, 1918.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] "The Pragmatic Method," _Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and
Scientific Methods_, 1918, Vol. XV, pp. 149-156.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. "Psychology as Philosophic Method" 1
II. The Development of the Psychological Standpoint 15
III. "Moral Theory and Practice" 33
IV. Functional Psychology 47
V. The Evolutionary Standpoint 59
VI. "Studies in Logical Theory" 72
VII. The Polemical Period 88
VIII. Later Developments 105
IX. Conclusions 119
CHAPTER I
"PSYCHOLOGY AS PHILOSOPHIC METHOD"
Dewey's earliest standpoint in philosophy is presented in two articles
published in _Mind_ in 1886: "The Psychological Standpoint," and
"Psychology as Philosophic Method."[2] These articles appear to have
been written in connection with his _Psychology_, which was published in
the same year, and which represents the same general point of view as
applied to the study of mental phenomena. For the purposes of the
present study attention may be confined to the two articles in _Mind_.
Dewey begins his argument, in "The Psychological Standpoint," with a
reference to Professor Green's remark that the psychological standpoint
is what marks the difference between transcendentalism and British
empiricism. Dewey takes exception to this view, and asserts that the two
schools hold this standpoint in common, and, furthermore, that the
psychological standpoint has been the strength of British empiricism and
desertion of that standpoint its weakness. Shadworth Hodgson's comment
on this proposal testifies to its audacity. In a review of Dewey's
article, he says: "If for instance we are told by a competent writer,
that Absolute Idealism is not only a truth of experience but one
attained directly by the method of experiential psychology, we should
not allow our astonishment to prevent our examining the arguments, by
virtue of which English psychology attains the results of German
transcendentalism without quitting the ground of experience."[3]
Dewey defines his psychological standpoint as follows: "We are not to
determine the nature of reality or of any object of philosophical
inquiry by examining it as it is in itself, but only as it is an element
in our knowledge, in our experience, only as it is related to our mind,
or is an 'idea'.... Or, in the ordinary way of putting it, the nature
of all objects of philosophical inquiry is to be fixed by finding out
what experience says about them."[4] The implications of this definition
do not appear at first sight, but they become clearer as the discussion
proceeds.
Locke, Dewey continues, deserted the psychological standpoint because he
did not, as he proposed, explain the nature of such things as matter and
mind by reference to experience. On the contrary, he explained
experience through the assumption of the two unknowable substances,
matter and mind. Berkeley also deserted the psychological standpoint, in
effect, by having recourse to a purely transcendent Spirit. Even Hume
deserted it by assuming as the only reals certain unrelated sensations,
and by trying to explain the origin of experience and knowledge by their
combination. These reals were supposed to exist in independence of an
organized experience, and to constitute it by their association. It
might be argued that Hume's sensations are found in experience by
analysis, and this would probably be true. But the sensations are
nothing apart from the consciousness in which they are found. "Such a
sensation," Dewey says, "a sensation which exists only within and for
experience, is not one which can be used to account for experience. It
is but one element in an organic whole, and can no more account for the
whole, than a given digestive act can account for the existence of a
living body."[5]
So far Dewey is merely restating the criticism of English empiricism
that had been made by Green and his followers. Reality, as experienced,
is a whole of organically related parts, not a mechanical compound of
elements. Whatever is to be explained must be taken as a fact of
experience, and its meaning will be revealed in terms of its position
and function within the whole. But while Dewey employs the language of
idealism, it is doubtful whether he has grasped the full significance of
the "concrete universal" of the Hegelian school. The following passage
illustrates the difficulty: "The psychological standpoint as it has
developed itself is this: all that is, is for consciousness or
knowledge. The business of the psychologist is to give a genetic
account of the various elements within this consciousness, and thereby
fix their place, determine their validity, and at the same time show
definitely what the real and eternal nature of this consciousness
is."[6]
Consciousness (used here as identical with 'experience') is apparently
interpreted as a structure made up of elements related in a determinable
order, and having, consequently, a 'real and eternal nature.' The result
is a 'structural' view of reality, and the type of idealism for which
Dewey stands may fittingly be called 'structural' idealism. This type of
idealism does, in fact, hold a position intermediate between English
empiricism and German transcendentalism. But it would not commonly be
considered a synthesis of the best characteristics of the two schools.
'Structural' idealism is, historically considered, a reversion to Kant
which retains the mechanical elements of the _Critique_, but fails to
reckon with the truly organic mode of interpretation in which it
culminates. As experience, from Kant's undeveloped position, is a
structure of sensations and forms, so Dewey's 'consciousness' is a
compound of separate elements or existences related in a 'real and
eternal' order.
Dewey illustrates his method, in the discussion which follows, by
employing it, or showing how it should be employed, in the definition of
certain typical objects of philosophical inquiry. The first to be
considered are subject and object. In dealing with the relation of
subject to object, the psychological method will attempt to show how
consciousness differentiates itself, or 'specifies' itself, into subject
and object. These terms will be viewed as related terms within the whole
of 'consciousness,' rather than as elements existing prior to or in
independence of the whole in which they are found.
There is a type of realism which illustrates the opposite or ontological
method. It is led, through a study of the dependence of the mind upon
the organism, to a position in which subject and object fall apart, out
of relation to each other. The separation of the two leads to the
positing of a third term, an unknown _x_, which is supposed to unite
them. The psychological method would hold that the two objects have
their union, not in an unknown 'real,' but in the 'consciousness' in
which they appear. The individual consciousness as subject, and the
objects over against it, are elements at once distinguished and related
within the whole. All the terms are facts of experience, and none are to
be assumed as ontological reals.
Subjective idealism, Dewey continues, makes a similar error in failing
to discriminate between the ego, or individual consciousness, and the
Absolute Consciousness within which ego and object are differentiated
elements. It fails to see that subject and object are complements, and
inexplicable except as related elements in a larger whole. The
individual consciousness, again, and the universal 'Consciousness,' are
to be defined by reference to experience. It is not to be assumed at the
start, as the subjective idealists assume, that the nature of the
individual consciousness is known. The ego is to be defined, not
assumed, and this is the essence of the psychological method.
So far, two factors in Dewey's standpoint are clearly discernible. In
the first place, all noumena and transcendent reals are to be rejected
as means of explanation, and definition is to be wholly in terms of
experienced elements, as experienced. In the second place, experience is
to be regarded as a rational system of related elements, while
explanation is to consist in tracing out the relations which any element
bears to the whole. The universal 'Consciousness' is the whole, and the
individual mind, again, is an element within the whole, to be explained
by tracing out the relations which it bears to other elements and to the
whole system. It is not easy to avoid the conclusion that Dewey
conceives of 'consciousness' as a construct of existentially distinct
terms.
Dewey does not actually treat subject and object, individual and
universal consciousness, in the empirical manner for which he contends.
He merely outlines a method; and, while this has a negative bearing as
against transcendent modes of explanation, it has little content of its
own. But in spite of Dewey's lack of explicitness, it is evident that he
tends to view his 'objects of philosophical inquiry' as so many concrete
particular existences or things. The idea that they can be empirically
marked out and investigated seems to imply this. But subject, object,
individual, and universal are certainly not reducible to particular
sensations, even though it must be admitted that they have a reference
to particulars. These abstract concepts had been a source of difficulty
to the empiricists, because they had not been able to reduce them to
particular impressions, and Dewey's proposed method appears to involve
the same difficulty.
In his second article, on "Psychology as Philosophic Method," Dewey
proposes to show that his standpoint is practically identical with that
of transcendental idealism. This is made possible, he believes, through
the fact that, since experience or consciousness is the only reality,
psychology, as the scientific account of this reality, becomes identical
with philosophy.
In maintaining his position, Dewey finds it necessary to criticise the
tendency, found in certain idealists, to treat psychology merely as a
special science. This view of psychology is attained, Dewey observes, by
regarding man under two arbitrarily determined aspects. Taken as a
finite being acting amid finite things, a knowing, willing, feeling
phenomenon, man is said to be the object of a special science,
psychology. But in another aspect man is infinite, the universal
self-consciousness, and as such is the object of philosophy. This
distinction between the two aspects of man's nature, Dewey believes,
cannot be maintained. As a distinction, it must arise within
consciousness, and it must therefore be a psychological distinction.
Psychology cannot limit itself to anything less than the whole of
experience, and cannot, therefore, be a special science dependent, like
others, upon philosophy for its working concepts. On the contrary, the
method of psychology must be the method of philosophy.
Dewey reaches this result quite easily, because he makes psychology the
science of reality to begin with. "The universe," he says, "except as
realized in an individual, has no existence.... Self-consciousness means
simply an individualized universe; and if this universe has _not_ been
realized in man, if man be not self-conscious, then no philosophy
whatever is possible. If it _has_ been realized, it is in and through
psychological experience that this realization has occurred. Psychology
is the scientific account of this realization, of this individualized
universe, of this self-consciousness."[7]
It is difficult to understand exactly what these expressions meant for
Dewey. Granting that the human mind is both individual and universal,
what objection could be raised against the study of its individual or
finite aspects as the special subject-matter of a particular science?
All the sciences, as Dewey was aware, are abstract in method. Dewey's
position appears to be that the universal and individual aspects of
consciousness are nothing apart from each other, and must be studied
together. But 'consciousness' in Dewey's view is, in fact, two
consciousnesses. Reality as a whole is a Consciousness, and the
individual mind is another consciousness. A problem arises, therefore,
as to their connection. Dewey affirms that, unless they are united,
unless the universal is given in the individual consciousness, there can
be no science of the whole, and therefore no philosophy. The
epistemological problem of the relation of the mind to reality becomes,
accordingly, the _raison d'etre_ of his method. The problem was an
inheritance from subjective idealism. It may be pointed out that there
is some similarity between Dewey's standpoint and Berkeley's. Both
conceive of consciousness as a construct of elements, and Dewey's
'Consciousness in general' holds much the same relation to the finite
consciousness that the Divine Mind holds to the individual consciousness
in Berkeley's system. The similarity between the two standpoints must
not be overemphasized, but it is none the less suggestive and
interesting.
In attempting to determine the proper status of psychology as a science,
Dewey is led into a more detailed exposition of his standpoint. His
position in general is well indicated in the following passage: "In
short, the real _esse_ of things is neither their _percipi_, nor their
_intelligi_ alone; it is their _experiri_."[8] The science of the
_intelligi_ is logic, and of the _percipi_, philosophy of nature. But
these are abstractions from the _experiri_, the science of which is
psychology. If it be denied that the _experiri_, self-consciousness in
its wholeness, can be the subject-matter of psychology, then the
possibility of philosophy is also denied. "If man, as matter of fact,
does not realise the nature of the eternal and the universal _within_
himself, as the essence of his own being; if he does not at one stage of
his experience consciously, and in all stages implicitly, lay hold of
this universal and eternal, then it is mere matter of words to say that
he can give no account of things as they universally and eternally are.
To deny, therefore, that self-consciousness is a matter of psychological
experience is to deny the possibility of any philosophy."[9] Dewey
assures us again that his method alone will solve the epistemological
problem.
Self-consciousness, as that within which things exist _sub specie
aeternitatis_ and _in ordine ad universum_, must be the object of
psychology. The refusal to take self-consciousness as an experienced
fact, Dewey says, results in such failures as are seen in Kant, Hegel,
and even Green and Caird, to give any adequate account of the nature of
the Absolute. Kant, for purely logical reasons, denied that
self-consciousness could be an object of experience, although he
admitted conceptions and perceptions as matters of experience. As a
result of his attitude, conception and perception were never brought
into organic connection; the self-conscious, eternal order of the world
was referred to something back of experience. Dewey attributes Kant's
failure to his logical method, which led him away from the psychological
standpoint in which he would have found self-consciousness as a directly
presented fact.
This criticism of Kant's 'logical method' fails to take account of the
transitional nature of Kant's standpoint. Looking backward, it is easy
enough to ask why Kant did not begin with the organic view of experience
at which he finally arrived. But the answer must be that the organic
standpoint did not exist until Kant, by his 'logical method,' had
brought it to light. The Kantian interpretation of experience, in which,
as Dewey asserts, conception and perception were never brought into
organic relation, is a half-way stage between mechanism and organism.
But how does Dewey propose to improve upon Kant's position? He will
first of all put Kant's noumenal self back into experience, as a fact in
consciousness. But how will this help to bring perception and conception
into closer union? There seems to be no answer. Dewey's view appears to
be that organic relations are achieved whenever an object is made a part
of experience and so brought into connection with other experienced
facts. 'Organic relation' is interpreted as equivalent to 'mental
relation.' But mental relations are not organic because they are mental.
It would be as easy to assert that they are mechanical. The test lies in
the nature of the relations which are actually found in the mental
sphere and the fitness of the organic categories to express them.
Dewey's 'consciousness,' as has been said before, appears to be a
structure, not an organism. Its parts are external to each other,
however closely they may be related. An organic view of experience would
begin with a denial of the actuality of bare facts or sensations, and
would not waver in maintaining that standpoint to the end.
Hegel's advance upon Kant, Dewey continues, "consisted essentially in
showing that Kant's _logical_ standard was erroneous, and that, as a
matter of logic, the only true criterion or standard was the organic
notion, or _Begriff_, which is a systematic totality, and accordingly
able to explain both itself and also the simpler processes and
principles."[10] The logical reformation which Hegel accomplished was
most important, but the work of Kant still needed to be completed by
"showing self-consciousness as a fact of experience, as well as
perception through organic forms and thinking through organic
principles."[11] This element is latent in Hegel, Dewey believes, but
needs to be brought out.
T. H. Green comes under the same criticism. He followed Kant's logical
method, and as a consequence arrived at the same negative results. The
nature of self-consciousness remains unknown to Green; he can affirm its
existence, but cannot describe its nature. Dewey quotes that passage
from the _Prolegomena to Ethics_ in which Green says:[12] "As to what
that consciousness in itself or in its completeness is, we can only
make negative statements. _That_ there is such a consciousness is
implied in the existence of the world; but _what_ it is we only know
through its so far acting in us as to enable us, however partially and
interruptedly, to have knowledge of a world or an intelligent
experience." If, Dewey observes, Green had begun with the latter point
of view, and had taken self-consciousness as at least partially realized
in finite minds, he would have been able to make some positive
statements about it. Dewey, however, has not given the most adequate
interpretation of Green's 'Spiritual Principle in Nature.' This was
evidently, for Green, a symbol of the intelligibility of the world as
organically conceived, an order which could not be comprehended by the
mechanical categories, but which was nevertheless real. As Green tended
to hypostatize the organic conception, so Dewey would make it a concrete
reality, with the further specification that it must be something given
to psychological observation.
The chief point of Dewey's criticism of the idealists is that they fail
to establish self-consciousness as an experienced fact; and, Dewey
maintains, it must be so established if it is to be anything real and
genuine. If it is anything that can be discussed at all, it must be an
element in experience; and if it is in experience, it must be the
subject-matter of psychology. It is inevitable, from Dewey's standpoint,
that transcendentalism should adopt his psychological method.
In the further development of his standpoint, Dewey considers (1) the
relations of psychology to the special sciences, and (2) the relation of
psychology to logic. Dewey's conception of the relation of psychology to
the special sciences is well illustrated in the following passage:
"Mathematics, physics, biology exist, because conscious experience
reveals itself to be of such a nature, that one may make virtual
abstraction from the whole, and consider a part by itself, without
damage, so long as the treatment is purely scientific, that is, so long
as the implicit connection with the whole is left undisturbed, and the
attempt is not made to present this partial science as metaphysic, or as
an explanation of the whole, as is the usual fashion of our uncritical
so-called 'scientific philosophies.' Nay more, this abstraction of some
one sphere is itself a living function of the psychologic experience. It
is not merely something which it allows: it is something which it
_does_. It is the analytic aspect of its own activity, whereby it
deepens and renders explicit, realizes its own nature.... The analytic
movement constitutes the special sciences; the synthetic constitutes the
philosophy of nature; the self-developing activity itself, as
psychology, constitutes philosophy."[13]
The special sciences are regarded as abstractions from the central or
psychological point of view, but they are legitimate abstractions,
constituted by a proper analytic movement of the total
self-consciousness, which specifies itself into the special branches of
knowledge. If we begin with any special science, and drive it back to
its fundamentals, it reveals its abstractness, and thought is led
forward into other sciences, and finally into philosophy, as the science
of the whole. But philosophy, first appearing as a special science,
turns out to be science; it is presupposed in all the special sciences,
and is their basis. But where does psychology stand in this
classification?
At first sight psychology appears to be a special science, abstract like
the others. "As to systematic observation, experiment, conclusion and
verification, it can differ in no essential way from any one of
them."[14] But psychology, like philosophy, turns out to be a science of
the whole. Each special science investigates a special sphere of
conscious experience. "From one science to another we go, asking for
some explanation of conscious experience, until we come to
psychology.... But the very process that has made necessary this new
science reveals also that each of the former sciences existed only in
abstraction from it. Each dealt with some one phase of conscious
experience, and for that very reason could not deal with the totality
which gave it its being, consciousness."[15] Philosophy and psychology
therefore mainly coincide, and the method of psychology, properly
developed, becomes the method of philosophy.
If psychology is to be identified with philosophy in this fashion, the
mere change of name would seem to be superfluous. There would be no
reason for maintaining psychology as a separate discipline. Perhaps
Dewey did not intend that it should be maintained separately. In that
case, the total effect of his argument would be to prescribe certain
methods for philosophy. It seems necessary to suppose that Dewey
proposed to merge philosophy in psychology, and make it an exact science
while retaining its universality. "Science," he argued, "is the
systematic account, or _reason_ of _fact_; Psychology is the completed
systematic account of the ultimate fact, which, as fact, reveals itself
as reason...."[16] Self-consciousness in its ultimate nature is
conceived of as a special fact, over and above what it includes in the
way of particulars. Psychology, as the science of this ultimate fact,
must at the same time be philosophy. The identification of the two
disciplines depends upon taking the 'wholeness' of reality as a 'fact,'
which can be brought under observation. This is a natural conclusion
from Dewey's structural view of reality.
In taking up the subject of the relation of psychology to logic, Dewey
remarks that in philosophy matter and form cannot be separated.
"Self-consciousness is the final truth, and in self-consciousness the
form as organic system and the content as organized system are exactly
equal to each other."[17] Logic abstracts from the whole, gives us only
the form, or _intelligi_ of reality, and is therefore only one moment in
philosophy. Since logic is an abstraction from Nature, we cannot get
from logic back to Nature, by means of logic. We do, as a matter of
fact, make the transition in philosophy, because the facts force us back
to Nature. Just as in Hegel's logic, the category of quality, when
pressed, reveals itself as inadequate to express the facts, and is
compelled to pass into the category of quantity, so does logic as a
whole, when pressed, reveal its inadequacy to express the whole of
reality. The transition from category to category in the Hegelian logic
is not an unfolding of the forms as forms, but results from a compulsion
exerted by the facts, when the categories are used to explain them.
Logic is, and must remain, abstract in all its processes, and its
outcome (with Hegel, _Geist_) may assert the abstract necessity of one
self-conscious whole, but cannot give the reality. "Logic cannot reach,
however much it may point to, an actual individual. The gathering up of
the universe into one self-conscious individuality it may assert as
_necessary_, it cannot give it as _reality_."[18] Taken as an abstract
method, logic is apt to result in a pantheism, "where the only real is
the _Idee_, and where all its factors and moments, including spirit and
nature, are real only at different stages or phases of the _Idee_, but
vanish as imperfect ways of looking at things ... when we reach the
_Idee_."[19]
Dewey has in mind logic as a science of the forms of reality taken in
abstraction from their content. In reality, however, there can be no
logic of concepts apart from their concrete application. Hegel certainly
never believed that it was possible to abstract the logical forms from
reality and study them in their isolation. As against a purely formal
logic, if such a thing were possible, Dewey's criticism would be valid,
but the transcendental logic of his time was not formal in this sense.
The psychological method which Dewey offers as a substitute for the
logical method escapes, he believes, the difficulties of the latter
method. At the same time it preserves, in his opinion, the essential
spirit of the Hegelian method. Dewey's comments show that he conceives
his method to be a restatement, in improved form, of the doctrine of the
'concrete universal.' But the 'psychological method' and the method of
idealism are, if anything, antithetical. An excellent summary of Dewey's
theory is afforded by the following passage: "Only a living actual Fact
can preserve within its unity that organic system of differences in
virtue of which it lives and moves and has its being. It is with this
fact, conscious experience in its entirety, that psychology as method
begins. It thus brings to clear light of day the presupposition implicit
in every philosophy, and thereby affords logic, as well as the
philosophy of nature, its basis, ideal and surety. If we have determined
the nature of reality, by a process whose content equals its form, we
can show the meaning, worth and limits of any one moment of this
reality."[20]
It would be useless to speculate upon the various possible
interpretations that might be given of Dewey's psychological method. The
most critical examination of the text will not dispel its vagueness, nor
afford an answer to the many questions that arise. It does, however,
throw an interesting light on certain tendencies in Dewey's own
thinking.
Dewey's attempt to show that English empiricism and transcendentalism
have a common psychological basis must be regarded as a failure. That
the nature of the attempt reveals a misunderstanding, or fatal lack of
appreciation, on the part of Dewey, of the critical philosophy and the
later development of idealism by Hegel, has already been suggested. He
does not appear to have grasped the significance of the movement from
Kant to Hegel. Kant, of course, believed that the _a priori_ forms of
experience could be determined by a process of critical analysis, which
would reveal them in their purity. The constitutive relations of
experience were supposed by him to be limited to the pure forms of
sensibility, space and time, and the twelve categories of the
understanding, which, being imposed upon the manifold of sensations, as
organized by the productive imagination, determined once and for all the
order of the phenomenal world. His logic, therefore, as an account of
the forms of experience, would represent logic of the type which Dewey
criticized. But with the rejection of Kant's noumenal world, the
critical method assumed a different import. It was no longer to be
supposed that reality, as knowable, was organized under the forms of a
determinate number of categories, which could be separated out and
classified. Kant's idea that experience was an intelligible system was
retained, but its intelligibility was not supposed to be wholly
comprised in man's methods of knowing it. The instrumental character of
the categories was recognized. Criticism was directed upon the
categories, with the object of determining their validity, spheres of
relevance, and proper place in the system of knowledge. Such a
criticism, in the nature of things, could not deal with the forms of
thought in abstraction from their application. Direct reference to
experience, therefore, became a necessary element in idealism. At the
same time, philosophy became a 'criticism of categories.' The method is
empirical, but never psychological.
Dewey recognized the need of an empirical method in philosophy, but
failed to show specifically how psychology could deal with philosophical
problems. He appears to have conceived that sensation and meaning, facts
and forms, were present in experience or 'Consciousness,' as if this
were some total understanding which retained the elements in a fixed
union and order. While, according to his method, the forms of this
universal consciousness could not be considered apart from the
particulars in which they inhered, they might be studied by a survey of
experience, a direct appeal to consciousness, in which 'form and content
are equal.' He seems to have held that truth is given in immediate
experience. A study of reality as immediately given, therefore, to
psychological observation, would provide an account of the eternal
nature of things, as they stand in the universal mind. Dewey did not
attempt a criticism of the categories and methods which psychology must
employ in such a task. Had he done so, the advantages of a critical
method might have occurred to him.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] Vol. XI, pp. 1-19; pp. 153-173.
[3] "Illusory Psychology," _Mind_, Vol. XI, 1886, p. 478.
[4] "The Psychological Standpoint," _Mind_, 1886, Vol. XI, p. 2.
[5] _Ibid._, p. 7.
[6] _Op. cit._, p. 8 f.
[7] "Psychology as Philosophic Method," _Mind_, 1886, Vol. XI, p. 157.
[8] _Ibid._, p. 160. (Observe that this is a direct reference to
Berkeley.)
[9] _Op. cit._
[10] _Op. cit._, p. 161.
[11] _Ibid._
[12] Third Edition, p. 54.
[13] _Mind_, Vol. XI, p. 166 f.
[14] _Ibid._, p. 166.
[15] _Ibid._
[16] _Op. cit._, p. 170.
[17] _Ibid._
[18] _Op. cit._, p. 172.
[19] _Ibid._
[20] _Op. cit._