Thinking' (_Psychological_Review_, [vol. V], 1898, reprinted in his
volume, _Development_and_Evolution) seems to me an unusually
well-written pragmatic manifesto.  Nevertheless in 'The Limits of
Pragmatism' (ibid., [vol. XI], 1904), he (much less clearly) joins in
the attack.

191

     If humanism really be the name for such
a shifting of perspective, it is obvious that
the whole scene of the philosophic stage will
change in some degree if humanism prevails.
The emphasis of things, their foreground and
background distribution, their sizes and values,
will not keep just the same.(1)  If such
pervasive consequences be involved in humanism,
it is clear that no pains which philosophers
may take, first in defining it, and then in
furthering, checking, or steering its progress,
will be thrown away.

     It suffers badly at present from incomplete
definition.  Its most systematic advocates,
Schiller and Dewey, have published fragmentary
---

   1 The ethical changes, it seems to me, are beautifully made evident
in Professor Dewey's series of articles, which will never get the
attention they deserve till they are printed in a book.  I mean:  'The
Significance of Emotions,' _Psychological_Review_, vol. II, [1895], p.
13; 'The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology,' ibid., vol. III [1896], p.
357; 'Psychology and Social Practice,' ibid., vol. VII, [1900], p. 105;
'Interpretation of Savage Mind,' ibid., vol. IX, [1902], p.217; 'Green's
Theory of the Moral Motive,' _Philosophical_Review_, vol. I, [1892], p.
593; 'Self-realization as the Moral Ideal,' ibid., vol. II, [1893], p.
652; 'The Psychology of Effort,' ibid., vol. VI, [1897], p.43; 'The
Evolutionary Method as Applied to Morality,' ibid., vol XI, [1902], pp.
107, 353; 'Evolution and Ethics,' _Monist_, vol. VIII, [1898], p.321; to
mention only a few.

192
programs only; and its bearing on many
vital philosophic problems has not been traced
except by adversaries who, scenting heresies in
advance, have showered blows on doctrines --
subjectivism and scepticism, for example --
that no good humanist finds it necessary to
entertain.  By their still greater reticences, the
anti-humanists have, in turn, perplexed the
humanists.  Much of the controversy has involved
the word 'truth.'  It is always good in
debate to know your adversary's point of view
authentically.  But the critics of humanism
never define exactly what the word 'truth'
signifies when they use it themselves.  The
humanists have to guess at their view; and
the result has doubtless been much at beating of
the air.  Add to all this, great individual differences
in both camps, and it becomes clear that
nothing is so urgently needed, at the stage
which things have reached at present, as a
sharper definition by each side of its central
point of view.

     Whoever will contribute any touch of
sharpness will help us to make sure of what's

193
what and who is who.  Anyone can contribute
such a definition, and, without it, no one
knows exactly where he stands.  If I offer my
own provisional definition of humanism(1) now
and here, others may improve it, some adversary
may be led to define his own creed more sharply
by the contrast, and a certain quickening
of the crystallization of general opinion
may result.

                         I

     The essential service of humanism, as I conceive
the situation, is to have seen that _though_
_one_part_of_our_experience_may_lean_upon_another_
_part_to_make_it_what_it_is_in_any_one_of_several_
_aspects_in_which_it_may_be_considered,_experience_
_as_a_whole_is_self-containing_and_leans_
_on_nothing_.

     Since this formula also expresses the main
contention of transcendental idealism, it needs
abundant explication to make it unambiguous.
---

   1 [The author employs the term 'humanism' either as a synonym
for 'radical empiricism' (cf. e.g, above, p. 156); or as that general
philosophy of life of which 'radical empiricism' is the theoretical
ground (cf. below, p. 194).  For other discussions of 'humanism,' cf.
below, essay XI, and _The_Meaning_of)Truth_, essay III.  ED.]

194