Abstract

In view of the importance of the philosophical method argued in Mr. C. I. Lewis's “Experience and Meaning,” I wish to call attention to ambiguities which may have an important bearing on one of his conclusions. The method for which he argues is a certain empirical test of meaningfulness. It is his ‘positivistic’ inference from this method which I wish to challenge. To do so I shall present four points: A summary of his empirical test of meaningfulness; A ‘non-positivistic’ hypothesis which Mr. Lewis rejects; An analysis of this hypothesis in view of his test; The theory of universals implied in my analysis.