Paul Carus Research Articles

Monism and the Religion of Science

Monism was not just a philosophical outlook, but also an early twentieth-century new religious movement. Founded by the internationally renowned evolutionary theorist Ernst Haeckel, it was supposed to be a “Religion of Science” that repudiated matter-mind dualism in favor of reverence for a divinized Mother Nature. This article traces the genesis of the German Monist League and how it was transplanted to the United States by the publisher, Paul Carus. Although readers of this journal are likely to know about new religions that embrace “pseudoscience,” the surprise is that Monism had followers with significant scientific renown including multiple Nobel Prize-winning scientists, famous philosophers of science, and even a celebrated sociologist. Scholars of secularism or science and religion will want to know about how Haeckel and his followers constructed a hybrid Scientific Faith or Secular Church that this article demonstrates went on to provide the foundation for professionalizing American philosophy.

Ursula K. Le Guin: A Remembrance

Ursula K. Le GuinA Remembrance Mark Saltveit (bio) The acclaimed American novelist, poet, and essayist Ursula K. Le Guin died in 2018, at age 88. The Library of Congress called her "a living legend" (LoC 2000), and in August, 2019, she was featured in the American Masters series on PBS, which credited her with "bringing science fiction into the literary mainstream."1 The novelist Michael Chabon called her "the greatest American writer of her generation" (2018). Click for larger view View full resolution [End Page 223] Le Guin was heavily influenced by Daoism. As a child, she watched her father frequently reading from Paul Carus's 1898 edition of the Daode jing—he selected passages that were read at his funeral—and she embraced the book. "I was lucky to discover [Laozi] so young," she wrote, "so that I could live with his book my whole life long" (1997, ix). She had no formal practice, though, telling The Guardian that "I don't really know how one 'is' a Daoist. I do know that Daoist ideas inform a great deal of my writing" (Guardian 2004). Her 1971 novel, The Lathe of Heaven, was a direct exploration of Daoist themes; the title is taken from James Legge's translation of the Zhuangzi (ch. 23). Here a therapist finds that one of his patients can change reality through his dreams. The therapist wants to harness this power for good; but will his meddling prove wise? (The book also presciently describes a 21st-century world impoverished by global warming.) I lived in the same neighborhood as Le Guin for nearly all of my life; we had mutual friends. I read Lathe as a preteen, about the same time I found the Zhuangzi and the Daode jing on my own father's bookshelf, but I never met her outside of public book readings. She was very private and made that clear, both to friends and on her website. Though I was keen to interact with her, I respected that choice. In 1997, she published a popular English version of the Daode jing. In her typically blunt manner, she stated in the back matter, "This is a rendition, not a translation. I do not know any Chinese." Still, she enlisted the noted translator and professor emeritus Jerome P. Seaton as her co-author. The book was criticized as amateur and dilettantish by scholars such as Paul Goldin and Louis Komjathy, the latter a Quanzhen (Complete Perfection) initiate, lumping Le Guin together with Stephen Mitchell, the New Age author of the most popular English version of the text and calling their editions "no longer Daoist" (Komjathy 2014, 208). That seems a bit unfair, as Mitchell tossed off his version in a few weeks and blithely told the PBS News Hour that he felt he had the "privilege" to "take off at certain points and throw the original out the window and do variations" (Brown 2011). Le Guin, by contrast, worked on her rendition for four decades and explained her editorial choices in copious footnotes. Paul Goldin allowed that of the four popular "translators" he reviewed, "Only Le Guin was aided by a genuine authority (J. P. Seaton, a specialist in Chinese literature at the University of North Carolina), [End Page 224] and her book, as might be expected, is by far the best of the lot, although it too has major weaknesses" (2005, 120). He then goes on to commend the "care and integrity" with which she parsed other translations, though he criticized several of her specific English renderings (2005, 122). Ursula Le Guin grew to embody the "useless tree" as she aged—complex, resolute, and deeply rooted. As her fame and acclaim grew, she gave any new work and interviews to small independent presses and publications. She returned to poetry, her first art, and wrote of place, nature and time, of "dull desert stone, the weight of it is full / of slower, longer thoughts than mind can have" (Le Guin 2010). Asked if she felt "a bit out of step with [her] contemporaries," she replied, "Why should a woman of 74 want to be 'in step with' anybody? Am I in an army...

Monism and Meliorism

In 1887 the Open Court Publishing Company had its founding in a philosophy of monism. The company’s proprietor Edward C. Hegeler began the enterprise in an effort to promote his personal philosophic, religious, and moral ideas. He believed that these ideas could be conciliated with the growing scientific trends of the late nineteenth century, and that monism was the intellectual framework for doing so. Paul Carus, the editor of the journals The Open Court and The Monist, joined Hegeler as an intellectual ally in this regard. For thirty years he openly defended the doctrines of monism in countless articles and books, successfully grounding the Open Court on this philosophy. This paper uncovers the historical development of the philosophical origin of the Open Court as it began with Hegeler’s personal religious motives, his ideological tension with the original editor Benjamin Underwood, and his embrace of the monistic writings of Paul Carus. It also examines Hegeler’s and Carus’s publications and personal letters from the 1880s and 1890s in order to determine the fundamental doctrines of their unique sense of monism. In Carus’s writings in particular is proposed a monism of causality that is compatible with a deterministic worldview and a unitary conception of the sciences. Also, both Carus and Hegeler propose a monistic ethics of meliorism that conceives the diverse periods of human history to be evolving toward the one final end of the moral improvement of humankind. While these are the positive doctrines that they accept, they further reject the antitheses of philosophical dualism and irreligious attitude of agnosticism of all varieties.

Jourdain, Russell and the Axiom of Choice: A New Document

June 25, 2012 (9:21 pm) E:\CPBR\RUSSJOUR\TYPE3201\russell 32,1 060 red.wpd 1 Jourdain’s principal historical writings are gathered together in Selected Essays on the History of Set Theory and Logics (1906–1918), ed. I. Grattan-Guinness (Bologna: clueb, 1991) and his introduction to G. Cantor, Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of TransWnite Numbers, trans. and ed. Jourdain (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1915; repr. New York: Dover, 1955). 2 I. Grattan-Guinness, Dear Russellz—zDear Jourdain: a Commentary on Russelly’s Logic, Based on His Correspondence with Philip Jourdain (London: Duckworth; New York: Columbia U. P., 1977); hereafter “RJy”. russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 32 (summer 2012): 69–74 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036-01631; online 1913-8032 ocuments JOURDAIN, RUSSELL AND THE AXIOM OF CHOICE: A NEW DOCUMENT I. Grattan-Guinness Middlesex U. Business School Hendon, London nw4 4bt, uk Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, l.s.e. London wc2a 2ae, uk ivor2@mdx.ac.uk i.wcareer P hilip Edward Bertrand Jourdain (1879–1919) went up to Trinity College Cambridge in 1899 with a scholarship in mathematics. Two years later he attended a special College course in mathematical logic oTered by Bertrand Russell, the Wrst of its kind ever taught in a British university. This contact with Russell was of major consequence for his intellectual career, for he focused upon set theory and its history, and also on the histories of mathematical analysis and of logic, and aspects of the history and philosophy of mechanics and of science.1 He corresponded at length with Russell until his death in 1919; the exchange forms the core of my book on their relationship.2 From his youth Jourdain suTered from a creeping paralysis called “Friedreich ’s ataxia”. It prevented him from taking the Part 2 Tripos; thus he did not graduate as a Wrangler and so could not compete for a fellowship at Trinity. So he made his living from a few scholarships and from freelance writing as an June 25, 2012 (9:21 pm) E:\CPBR\RUSSJOUR\TYPE3201\russell 32,1 060 red.wpd 70 i. grattan-guinness 3 E. Zermelo, “Beweis, dass jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann”, Mathematische Annalen 59 (1904): 514–16. 4 See especially H. Rubin and J.yE Rubin, Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985). 5 The history of this/these axioms has been charted in much detail. See especially J. Cassinet and M. Guillemot, “L’axiome du choix dans les mathématiques de Cauchy (1821) à Gödel (1940)”, 2 vols. (U. of Toulouse double docteur d’état des sciences, 1983); F.yA. MedvedeT, Rannyaya istoriya aksiomi vibora (Moscow: Nauka, 1982); and G.yH. Moore, Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice … (New York: Springer, 1982). RJ discusses the axioms in the contexts of the correspondence. independent scholar. In particular, the American house The Open Court Publishing Company employed him, especially from 1912 on their principal journal The Monist, commissioning papers (and also some books) from colleagues, in particular Russell. He seems to have served as its general editor soon after the death in February 1919 of its founder editor, Paul Carus, but he died himself early in October. Those last months form the time-frame of this paper. 2.wobsession Jourdain’s principal research interest in the foundations of mathematics came to focus upon the denumerable “axiom of choice” in set theory and mathematics , as Ernst Zermelo named it a few years after introducing it in 1904.3 Take an inWnite ensemble of non-empty and pairwise disjoint sets and choose a member from each set in independent actions; then the axiom asserts that the collection of chosen members can always be regarded as a genuine set. But this manner of forming a set roused considerable doubts and opposition among many (though not all) set-theorists and logicians. Some of them rejected the axiom altogether; others tried to reprove theorems that used the axiom by proofs that avoided it; several sought hopefully more congenial assumptions that were logically equivalent to the axiom, and eventually many came to light.4 Logicists such...

Old Pragmatisms, New Histories

Old Pragmatisms, New Histories Douglas Anderson (bio) 1. Introduction The task at hand is to review work on the history of early American pragmatism from the last ten years. However, writing on the history of pragmatism presents us with a different problem than, say, dealing with historical accounts of Mill’s Logic. The meaning of ‘pragmatism’ is routinely contested and, likewise, who is to count as a pragmatist is contested. The issue, of course, arose soon after William James named “pragmatism” in his 1898 talk at Berkeley titled “Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results.” The discussions of pragmatism that ensued in journals soon thereafter marked James, Charles Peirce, John Dewey, and F. C. S. Schiller as pragmatists. There were, as well, a number of “friends” of pragmatism such as Addison Moore. There were also clear-cut opponents of pragmatism including the likes of Paul Carus and James E. Creighton. But issues quickly muddied the waters. American idealist Josiah Royce, objecting to what he took to be the intellectually loose Jamesian-Schillerian strand of pragmatism, named them ‘pure pragmatists’, and then included himself in the pragmatic tradition arguing—correctly—that he had long defended the importance philosophical ideas held for social change. Accordingly, he named himself an ‘absolute pragmatist’. Peirce, though not a defender of absolute pragmatism, routinely included Royce among the pragmatists, and maintained that his own views were closer in some ways to those in Royce’s later work than to those of Schiller and James. Then, in 1906, Peirce famously muddied the waters further by renaming his outlook ‘pragmaticism’ while still counting it as a version of the larger family of pragmatism. His rebuke of looser versions was in part aimed at James and Schiller, but even more tellingly at more literary-minded folk who had decided they were pragmatists.1 James and Schiller, for their part, saw themselves as giving visibility to a new philosophical method that had historical [End Page 489] roots in Greek and modern British philosophy. Schiller, technically non-American, has received less airtime over the course of the twentieth century in part because his “humanism” was more openly relativistic than the other pragmatisms, and in part because his work met stiff and persistent resistance in the British academy. His openly Protagorean outlook better foreshadowed the work of Richard Rorty than that of the other pragmatists.2 James, who took most of the heat generated by the introduction of pragmatism, spent so much energy defending his views that he had little time to worry about who should be included—given his defensive position, we might say that the more pragmatists the better in a Jamesian world. John Dewey, having read widely in both James and Peirce, was the third of the original Americans identified as pragmatists. But it is interesting to note that he quickly named his thought ‘instrumentalism’ and throughout his career used the term ‘pragmatism’ much less often than one might think. He rejected Royce’s self-proclaimed pragmatism, identifying him as an absolute voluntarist. On the other hand, Dewey’s fame as a pragmatist brought one of his colleagues, George Herbert Mead, into the pragmatic fold. In any case, one gets the idea regarding the contestation of pragmatism and perhaps its ownership. As the twentieth century developed, Dewey was the only one openly and prominently carrying on the pragmatic tradition. In not keeping step with the linguistic turn folks—or Anglo-American mainstream philosophy in general—pragmatism for the most part fell by the way. Jennifer Welchman argues that “after the Second World War Dewey’s work began to look isolated from the mainstream of twentieth-century philosophy and, eventually, irrelevant to its development.”3 She blames this on Dewey’s failure “to adopt the language and techniques of the newly developed mathematical logic,” his failure to take the linguistic turn, and on the fact that his “work became increasingly incomprehensible to students of the newer logic, epistemology, and theory of language.”4 This is basically accurate but overlooks a few key elements. One is that the folks engaged in these twentieth-century developments, from Dewey’s point of view, remained ahistorical modernist thinkers. They openly challenged the significance of the history...

Modernity and the Early Discourse of Scientific Buddhism

The interpretation of Buddhism as consonant with science has been an essential factor in the transmission of Buddhism to the West, as well as in the success of certain reform movements in Asia. Both westerners and Asians developed the discourse of scientific Buddhism in response to different but interrelated crises in their various cultural contexts in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Anagarika Dharmapala's contribution to this discourse arose out of a crisis of legitimacy in Sinhalese Buddhism that stemmed from colonialism, missionization, western hegemony, and western representations of Asians and Buddhism common to this period. Two Americans, Paul Carus and Henry Steel Olcott, attempted to establish the scientificity of Buddhism in response to the Victorian crisis of faith. This discourse represented Buddhism as an inverse reflection of what skeptics and liberal Christians believed to be problematic about orthodox interpretations of Christianity in light of scientific developments and biblical criticism.

Alasdair MacIntyre: Dependent rational animals. Why human beings need the virtues. The Paul Carus lecture series 20

Alasdair MacIntyre: Dependent rational animals. Why human beings need the virtues. The Paul Carus lecture series 20

Buddha no fukuin: The deployment of Paul Carus's Gospel of Buddha in Meiji Japan

Buddha no fukuin: The deployment of Paul Carus's Gospel of Buddha in Meiji Japan

Catalyst for controversy: Paul Carus of Open Court

am a common atheist; I am an atheist who loves God.Paul Carus, God of Science, 1904In the summer of 1880, while teaching at the military academy of the Royal Corps of Cadets of Saxony in Dresden, Paul Carus published a brief pamphlet denying the literal truth of scripture and describing the Bible as a great literary work comparable to the Odyssey.This unremarkable document was Carus s first step in a wide-ranging intellectual voyage in which he traversed philosophy, science, religion, mathematics, history, music, literature, and social and political issues. The Royal Corps, Carus later reported, found his published views not in harmony with the Christian spirit, in accordance with which the training and education of the Corps of Cadets should be conducted. And so the corps offered the young teacher the choice of asking most humbly for forgiveness for daring to have an opinion of my own and to express it, perhaps even promise to publish nothing more on religious matters, or to give up my post. I chose the latter. . . . There was thus no other choice for me but to emigrate and, trusting in my own powers, to establish for myself a new home. His resignation was effective on Easter Sunday, 1881.Carus toured the Rhine, lived briefly in Belgium, and taught in a military college in England to learn English well enough to thrive in the United States. By late 1884 or early 1885 he was on his way to the New World. Thriving in the United States proved more difficult it had in England, but before 1885 ended he had published his first philosophical work in English, Monism and Meliorism. book was widely read, but it did reach Edward C. Hegeler, a La Salle, Illinois, zinc processor who became his father-in-law as well as his ideological and financial backer.Established in La Salle, Carus began the work that would place him among the prominent American philosophers of his day and make the Open Publishing Company a leading publisher of philosophical, scientific, and religious books. He edited Open Court and Monist, offering the finest view of Oriental thought and religion then available in the West, and sought unsuccessfully to bring about a second World Parliament of Religions. He befriended physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach. For eleven years he employed D. T. Suzuki, who later became a great Zen Buddhist teacher. He published more articles by Charles S. Peirce, now viewed as one of the great world philosophers, in Monist than appeared in any other publication.Biographer Harold Henderson concludes his study of this remarkable man: Whenever anyone is so fired with an idea that he or she can t wait to write it down, there the spirit of Paul Carus remains, as he would have wished, active in the world.

The many faces of realism: the Paul Carus lectures

The many faces of realism: the Paul Carus lectures

A Reexamination of the Franklin Square

In Chapter 3 of his book Magic Squares and Cubes W. S. Andrews states in concise form what is known about the particular magic square invented by Benjamin Franklin. Included in this chapter is “An Analysis of the Franklin Square” by Paul Carus. Each of these authors gives a most penetrating treatment of the subject, and an ingenious method of construction is described. Of this method, however, Carus admits: “We do not know the method employed by Franklin; we possess only the result, but it is not probable that he derived his square according to the scheme employed here” (p. 112).

The Meeting of East and West: The Case of Paul Carus

The Meeting of East and West: The Case of Paul Carus

The Indian Influence in American Philosophy: Emerson to Moore

ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT Cotton Mather knew something about Indian philosophy as early as 1721, and that Joseph Priestley knew considerably more by the end of the eighteenth century, it is only with the New England Transcendentalists that we find a genuine passion for Indian thought developing. There has been a continuous concern for Indian thought in the United States since Emerson's early years, but the individual rivulets became streams and rivers during certain periods and in particular localities. One of the effects of Transcendentalist interest in Indian thought, for example, was a flurry of awareness in St. Louis, from whence it spread to Illinois. In Illinois it reached a peak of influence in the work of Paul Carus, who attempted to reconcile science with religion, especially the religion of India. It was his view that the essence of religion lies in its practical application of a world-conception motivated by religious sentiment. The basic laws of morality are based on the nature of things, and constitute an intrinsic part of the world order, as William Hay put it. Carus' extensive writings in the field of Indian philosophy and religion as well as his exegesis of Indian art are shown in the titles of his works: The Dharma, The Gospel of Buddha, Buddhism and its Christian Critics, Portfolio of Buddhist Art, Stories of Buddhism, and Amitabha. In addition to these volumes Carus wrote more than seven editorial articles on Hinduism and thirty-nine on Buddhism between 1887 and 1909 in The Open Court and The Monist. Up to this time, most of the concern for Indian thought was centered in two American states: Massachusetts and Illinois. But the stage was set for its expansion. At first this appeared surreptitiously in an indigenous American religion, Christian Science, second in the growth of theosophy, and third, in the founding of the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Centres. Theosophy in America worked contemporaneously with St. Louis philos-

Paul Carus and the Religion of Science

Paul Carus and the Religion of Science

The Meaning of Human History

IT is not well to give an affirmative answer without examining the meaning of the question and making some necessary distinctions. Such prudence in dealing with vague concepts of the meaning of human history, with the numerous alleged 'laws' and explanations of the growth of human society, was very much in the character of the late Morris Cohen's writing. Lucid, careful in distinguishing, ready to postpone acceptance of a solution of a problem if it had no more to commend itself than that it solved part of the problem, these were the intellectual merits manifested in all his writing ; and they are manifested in these posthumously published Carus Lectures. The Meaning of Human History By Morris R. Cohen (Paul Carus Lectures, Sixth Series, 1944.) Pp. ix+304. (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1947.) 4 dollars.

Clarence Irving Lewis. An analysis of knowledge and valuation. The Paul Carus lectures, seventh series, 1945. The Open Court Publishing Company, La Salle, Ill., 1946, xxi + 567 pp.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

The Philosophy of the Present. By George Herbert Mead. Edited by A. E. Murphy, Preface by John Dewey. (Paul Carus Foundation Lectures III.) (London: Open Court Publishing Co.1932. Pp. xl + 199. Price 15s.)

The Philosophy of the Present. By George Herbert Mead. Edited by A. E. Murphy, Preface by John Dewey. (Paul Carus Foundation Lectures III.) (London: Open Court Publishing Co.1932. Pp. xl + 199. Price 15s.)

VI.—NEW BOOKS

Journal Article VI.—NEW BOOKS Get access The Philosophy of the Present. By GEORGE HERBERT MEAD. Edited by ARTHUR E. MURPHY, with Prefatory Remarks by JOHN DEWEY. Paul Carus Foundation Lectures. Third Series. Chicago, Open Court Publishing Co., 1932. Pp. xl, 199. $3.00. F. C. S. SCHILLER F. C. S. SCHILLER Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Mind, Volume XLII, Issue 167, July 1933, Pages 403–407, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XLII.167.403 Published: 01 July 1933

The Gospel of Buddha. Paul Carus

Previous articleNext article FreeBrief MentionThe Gospel of Buddha. Paul Carus W. C. MacD.W. C. MacD. Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 22, Number 2Apr., 1918 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/479934 Views: 20 Journal History This article was published in The American Journal of Theology (1897-1920), which is continued by The Journal of Religion (1921-present). PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

William James and Henri Bergson: A Study in Contrasting Theories of Life.

Volume 1 Introduction by John R. Shook, Oklahoma State University H. Heath Bawden, Principles of A Philosophical Interpretation of Experience (1910), 374pp Responses and Reviews F. C. S. Schiller, Review of Bawden, Principles of Pragmatism. Mind 19.3 (July 1910): 430-31. Boyd H. Bodc, Review of Bawden, Principles of Pragmatism. Philosophical Review 19.6 (November 1910): 642-47. E. D., Review of Bawden, Principles of Pragmatism. Revue de Philosophie 17.6 (December 1910): 631-32. Addison W. Moore, Review of Bawden, Principles of Pragmatism. American Journal of Sociology 17.1 (July 1911): 129-31. Anonymous, Review of Bawden, Principles of Pragmatism. Monist 21.3 (July 1911): 477-78. Horace M. Kallen, Pragmatism and Its Principles. Journal of Philosophy 8.23 (9 November 1911): 617-36. Volume 2 Introduction by Randall Auxiet, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale John Elof Boodin, Truth and Reality: Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (1911), 344pp Responses and Reviews Paul Carus, Editorial Comment. Monist 18.2 (April 1908): 306. Paul Carus, Editorial Comment. Monist 20.4 (October 1910): 614-615. Radoslav A. Tsanoff, Professor Boodin on the Nature of Truth. Philosophical Review 19.6 (November 1910): 632-38. Radoslav A. Tsanoff, Rejoinder. Philosophical Review 20.1 (January 1911): 63-66. C. D. Broad, Review of Boodin, Truth and Reality. Mind 21.3 (July 1912): 449-51. Ellen Bliss Talbot, Review of Boodin, Truth and Reality. Philosophical Review 21.4 (July 1912): 468-71. Andre Lalande, Review of Boodin, Truth and Reality. Revue Philosophique 77.2 (February 1914): 194-96. Charles B. Vibbert, Review of Boodin, Truth and Reality. Journal of Philosophy 12.2 (21 January 1915): 48-53. Volume 3 Introduction by Karen Hanson, Indiana University, Bloomington David L. Murray, Pragmatism (1912), 87pp Responses and Reviews David L. Murray, Pragmatic Realism. Mind 18.3 (July 1909): 377-90. Howard V. Knox, Review of Murray, Pragmatism. Mind 22.4 (October 1913): 560-63. John Pickett Turner, Review of Murray, Pragmatism. Journal of Philosophy 11.1 (1 January 1914): 24-26. F. C. S. Schiller, from Dr. Schiller. Journal of Philosophy 11.7 (26 March 1914): 194-95. David L. Murray, James, in Scenes and Silhouettes (1926), pp. 268-86. Volume 4 Introduction by Richard Gale, University of Pittsburgh Horace M. Kallen, William James and Henri Bergson: A Study in Contrasting Theories of Life (1914), 259pp Responses and Reviews H. Wildon Carr, Review of Kallen, William James and Henri Bergson. Mind 24.2 (April 1915): 269. Arthur O. Lovejoy, Review of Kallen, William James and Henri Bergson. Nation 100.14 (8 April 1915): 388-90. Addison W. Moore, Review of Kallen, William James and Henri Bergson. International Journal of Ethics 25.4 (July 1915): 554-56. George Peckham, Review of Kallen, William James and Henri Bergson. Journal of Philosophy 12.15 (22 July 1915): 416-17. Henri Bergson, An Extract from a Letter written by Henri Bergson to Horace M. Kallen. Journal of Philosophy 12.22 (28 October 1915): 615-16. Ellen Bliss Talbot, Review of Kallen, William James and Henri Bergson. Philosophical Review 24.6 (November 1915): 666-68. Volume 5 Introduction by Ellen Kappy Suckiel, University of California, Santa Cruz Howard V. Knox, Philosophy of William James (1914), 122pp Responses and Reviews Howard V. Knox, Pragmatism: Evolution of Truth. Quarterly Review 210.2 (April 1909): 379-407. Howard V. Knox, James and his Philosophy. Mind 22.2 (April 1913): 231-42. J. A. Stewart, Review of Knox, Philosophy of William Hibbert Journal 13.3 (April 1915): 677-81. William McDougall, Review of Knox, Philosophy of William Mind 24.3 (July 1915): 423-24. Howard V. Knox, The Letters of William James. Hibbert Journal 19.4 (July 1921): 645-53.