SIX THEORIES OF MIND SIX THEORIES OF MIND CHARLES VV. MORRIS, PH. D. Associate Professor of Philosophy The University of Chicago i THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO ILLINOIS TO JOHN DEWEY AND GEORGE H. MEAD PREFACE pages which follow were originally intended I to form the first part of a larger work on the topic M of mind. The pages, however, multiplied in an unseemly fashion, and came to assume somewhat the char acter of a separate work. The present study has deepened the initial conviction as to the fruitfulness of the identifi cation of mind with the symbolic process, and it is planned to follow this historical and comparative treatment with the development of a general theory of symbolism and its application to the nature of mind. Six dominant types of theory of mind are examined criti cally in successive chapters. No claim to completeness or finality in treatment can be made, but it is believed that these chapters do reveal the main articulation of this prov ince of thought, and exhibit the cultural and philosophical dialectic which has resulted in the present dominance of functional theories of mind. I am indebted to President Edgar Odell Lovett of the Rice Institute for permission to use portions of a study entitled The Nature of Mind which appeared in the Rice Institute Pamphlet of 1929, and to the editors of the Journal of Philosophy for permission to reprint, with some modifications, the pages on Mr. Whitehead. Professors Ridoslav A. Tsanoff, Edwin A. Burtt, and G. Watts Cun niagham have given me the benefit of their careful reading of the first two chapters, with the exception of the pages on Gentile and Leibniz. My deepest thanks must go to John Laird, Arthur O.Lovejoy, Charles A. Strong, Bertrand Russell, and John Dewey for valuable corrections and com viii PREFACE ments, and for their often elaborate analyses of the pag and chapters centering around their views. It is due t them that some errors have been avoided, and some stra men left untouched. The changes demanded by Mr. Love joys comments were so extensive that the present discus sion of his views cannot be said to have passed under hi eyes. The kindness and acumen of these men have beei commensurate with their eminence. Some of their reac tions have been embodied in the text, and some have beei inserted as footnotes. Mr. John Dewey has allowed me t state his acceptance of the presentation and interpretatioi of his views given in chapter vi, Mind as Function. Notes in this chapter denoted by letters of the alphabe instead of numerals are additions to the manuscript sinc Mr. Dewey s reading. Mr. Bertrand Russells restatemen of his analysis of mind has been inserted bodily in the chapter on Mind as Relation. Miss Vivian Vieweger has considerably lightened the more burdensome aspects of manuscript preparation. Two young ladies of different ages, one sharing my name and the other my blood, have constantly kept before aca demic eyes the living reality of mind. CHARLES W. MORRIS March, 1932, TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. MIND AS SUBSTANCE i 1. Primitive Conceptions of Mind I 2. Substance and Substantive 5 3. The Genesis of the Concept of Substance .... 8 4. Plato and the Substance Tradition 12 5. Function and Substance in Aristotle . .... 16 6. The Background of Cartesianism 21 7. The Cartesian Dualism 24 3. The Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian World-View . . 27 9. The Reactions of Hobbes andSpinoza 30 10. The Berkeleian Alternative 33 11. Hume and Kant 36 12. An Evaluation of the Concept of Substance . ... 41 II. MIND AS PROCESS 47 13. Idealism and Process Mind as Concrete Universal . 47 14. Hegels Doctrine of Absolute Mind 53 15. A Critical Glance at the Hegelian Position .... 56 16. Bradley Mind as Organic Wholeness 61 17. Bradley s Treatment of Finite Mind 63 18. Bosanquet Mind and Totality 67 19. Bosanquet on Finite Mind 69 20. Bosanquets Passage from Identity to Subject ... 72 21. An Evaluation of Absolute Idealism 76 22...