Two schools of philosophers--the “nominalists” and the
“conceptualists”--for long waged a wordy war as to whether or not the
mind could frame abstract or universal ideas. As a matter of fact, it
was ideas of universal or abstract objects that was meant. These ideas
dealt largely with the sense of _meaning_, the inner significance
of the thing contemplated. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of
mind--how such a thing as abstract meaning can exist at all, and how
brain-changes can in any way account for it. McDougall, as we know, is
inclined to question that they do so at all. Meaning is a thing most
difficult to account for on a purely materialistic basis. Abstract
thinking is supposed to be one of the highest types of thinking
possible for us; it is the most impersonal form of thought, and hence,
in a sense, the highest. Much has been written upon this topic in
Oriental literature. This question comes up for discussion, naturally,
in the Section devoted to the stream of thought, and the consciousness
of self; and further discussion of it will be found in that place.