Page:Mary Whiton Calkins - The Idealist to the Realist (The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 1911-08-17).pdf/5

Rh objects” in that they consist exclusively in relations. The idealist by examination of objects—he does not (as the realist accuses) assume—that both sense qualities and relations are mental. The following paragraphs will amplify this brief account from the idealist’s standpoint of the known object.

The idealistic view of sense qualities must first be considered. It is of utmost importance to state clearly that the contemporary idealist abandons some of the traditional arguments for his doctrine. He realizes that Berkeley’s objection to distinguishing primary from secondary qualities may as well be turned to favor materialism as to favor idealism. And he admits (as indeed Berkeley admitted) that the argument based merely on the variableness of qualities—according as the percipient is sick or well, warm or cold, distant or near, and the like—does not prove, even though it suggests, the ideality of objects. But the idealist rests his case not on reasoning of this sort, but on coupled with. To be more explicit: the idealist demands that his opponent describe any immediately perceived sense object in such wise that his description can not be disputed. The realist describes an object as, let us say, yellow, rough, and cold. But somebody may deny the yellowness, the roughness, or the coldness; and this throws the realist back on what he directly observes, what he knows with incontrovertible and undeniable certainty, namely that described by the terms yellowness, coldness, and the like (an experience which he does not give himself). This statement, and only this, nobody can challenge. And this statement embodies the result of immediate experience.

The idealist next subjects the relation to an analysis parallel to that of the sense quality. The realist, when challenged to describe his object-as-related, has said (we will suppose) that it is a sphere three inches in diameter, the fruit of a tree whose seed he saw planted two years ago. But what, asks the idealist, “spherical form,” “two years,” “the relation of fruit to seed”? Once more, all that the realist is immediately sure of—all that he can maintain in case his assertions are disputed—is that he has certain experiences indicated by the words he has used.

And if the realist seek to escape this conclusion by arguing that the real object is the object as, and that (though the