of spirituality which Professor Mezes chooses to mention. But in mentioning such forms, he himself at once defines their place in the unity of my conception, precisely in so far as he regards this ideal spirituality as something whose presence is needed in order to complete the perfection of the life of the Absolute.
Perhaps Professor Mezes may insist that his objection, as stated, is not in this way adequately met. For, as he states his case, “Nothing can be held to be a part of the inclusive experience of the Absolute until its existence is fully proven.” He admits, indeed, that “it is not the business of philosophy to prove the existence of individual facts,” but he adds that “it is the business of philosophy to establish the truth of such principles as are indispensable for proving the existence of any and every individual fact not directly observed.” With this latter statement I cannot at present adequately deal. I admit, of course, that philosophy is concerned with numerous relatively special “principles” which form no part of the present discussion of one most fundamental concept. On the other hand, I should not admit that philosophy can undertake to consider all the principles that would be “indispensable” in proving the existence of “any and every fact not directly observed,” including, for instance, the principles that would be needed to guide one in finding out how far what he reads in the newspapers about the battles in Cuba agrees with the “unobserved” occurrences in that unhappy and apparently mendacious island. Philosophy can as little take the place of common-sense as the latter can take the place of philosophy; and
