Studies in Logical Theory
- Language:
- English
- Status:
- Complete work
- Authorship:
- Written by the author
- Condition of the text:
- Clean text
- Extent:
- ~140,000 words · 684 passages
Cite this work
- APAJohn Dewey. (n.d.). Studies in Logical Theory. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/john-dewey/studies-in-logical-theory
- MLAJohn Dewey. "Studies in Logical Theory." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/john-dewey/studies-in-logical-theory.
- ChicagoJohn Dewey. Studies in Logical Theory. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/john-dewey/studies-in-logical-theory.
What it is about
The collective volume of 1903 in which Dewey and his Chicago colleagues set out their way of understanding thought: not as a mirror of the world but as an instrument for getting out of a difficulty.
Context and history
Dewey signs four of the essays and the rest are by his students; the book created what came to be known as the Chicago school of pragmatism. The thesis is that logic should study not eternal forms but actual inquiry: thinking begins when a situation becomes problematic, frames hypotheses, tests them, and ends when the situation is workable again. Truth, on this scheme, is not a correspondence but the outcome of a well-conducted inquiry. William James hailed the book as pragmatism come of age; Russell saw in it a confusion of knowing with doing. The argument continues in 'Essays in Experimental Logic', also in the corpus.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
This volume presents some results of the work done in the matter of logical theory in the Department of Philosophy of the University of Chicago in the first decade of its existence. The eleven Studies are the work of eight different hands, all, with the exception of the editor, having at some period held Fellowships in this University, Dr. Heidel in Greek, the others in Philosophy. Their names and present pursuits are indicated in the Table of Contents. The editor has occasionally, though rarely, added a footnote or phrase which might serve to connect one Study more closely with another. The pages in the discussion of Hypothesis, on Mill and Whewell, are by him. With these exceptions, each writer is individually and completely responsible for his own Study. The various Studies present, the editor believes, about the relative amount of agreement and disagreement that is natural in view of the conditions of their origin. The various writers have been in contact with one another in Seminars and lecture courses in pursuit of the same topics, and have had to do with shaping one another's views. There are several others, not represented in this volume, who have also participated in the evolution of the point of view herein set forth, and to whom the writers acknowledge their indebtedness. The disagreements proceed from the diversity of interests with which the different writers approach the logical topic; and from the fact that the point of view in question is still (happily) developing and showing no signs of becoming a closed system. If the Studies themselves do not give a fair notion of the nature and degree of the harmony in the different writers' methods, a preface is not likely to succeed in so doing. A few words may be in place, however, about a matter repeatedly touched upon, but nowhere consecutively elaborated--the more ultimate philosophical bearing of what is set forth. All agree, the editor takes the liberty of saying, tha