Page:Philosophical Review Volume 2.djvu/207

193

BY way of introduction to his very vigorous and skilful attack (see Vol. I., No. 5, of this ) on my article on "Reality" (in No. 3), Mr. F. C. S. Schiller is kind enough to say that I can present my views intelligibly. I fear, however, that I am not fully entitled to his compliment; for, in this case at least, I have certainly not succeeded in making my views intelligible to him. It would occupy too much space were I to attempt to clear up all the misunder- standings that I find in his criticism. I must limit myself to what seem the more important in their bearing on the general question.

Mr. Schiller complains (p. 535) that my opponents' views "are not stated or definitely referred to." For the sake of brevity and also in order to deal with the problem unencumbered by questions of literary interpretation, I kept my pages fairly free from names and references. I did, however, make one reference to Prof. A. Seth, from whom I quoted the dictum: "The individual alone is the real." It may serve the convenience of those interested in the problem, if I add, that in writing my paper I had in view, not merely the widespread reaction (in Great Britain at least) against what has been called Neo-Kantianism, but in particular a recent work entitled Riddles of the Sphinx (noticed and analyzed in the, Vol. I., No. 5), a work with which I may assume that Mr. Schiller is acquainted and with which I should imagine he is in substantial agreement. The special interest of this book, in my opinion, is that in it certain metaphysical theories, which are only implicit in the anti-Hegelian arguments of Prof. Seth, are carried out fearlessly to their extreme logical consequences (e.g. that God is limited in power).

Mr. Schiller does not appear to see or to admit that the question "What is reality?" is primarily a question about the meaning of a word; and I do not find that Mr. Schiller has yet given any sufficient explanation of what he means by "real"; nor do I know of any "Realist" who has done so. Mr. Schiller speaks as if I were occupied entirely with attacking "adversaries," whereas the greater part of my paper was simply an attempt to classify the very various