Page:The World and the Individual, Second Series (1901).djvu/65

40 general Theory of Being, we defined as the External and Internal Meaning of Ideas. Only, in that general discussion, we were considering our relation to the universe as a whole. Here we are concerned to point out how our relations to the particular objects of experience result from those involved in our general theory of reality. When we define any particular object as real, we are indeed momentarily conscious of the aspect of external necessity, foreign constraint, compulsion; and this aspect, as a rule, is, in our present life, predominant. But when we were inquiring into the general metaphysical issues, our whole attitude was deliberately reflective, self-conscious, observant of the demands that our ideas consciously make. Hence the bridge that leads over from an idealistic metaphysic to a theory of our knowledge of Nature and of Man is always difficult to find. The reader of idealistic theory accordingly often says, “All this seems plausible, but what has it to do with hard facts?” Now we have pointed out that the “hardness” of particular facts depends upon their having a more or less determinate structure. We human beings, however, never verify at any one moment this structure in so far as it is “hard,” i.e. stubborn, enduring, valid for all men, and real beyond the range of our momentary wishes and purposes. We can at any moment verify the fact that just then we do or do not find present what we seek. And we always do verify the fact in some respect, what we seek is present, since our seeking is already an act, and our act is already an expression of an idea. We also always verify the fact that, in some respect, what we seek is not present, since we are always dissatisfied. But