VISION AND TECHNIQUE IN PHILOSOPHY
IT is not without awe that one brought up in Oriental regard for his masters can venture to address you from a post formerly occupied by his revered teachers, Royce, James, Woodbridge, Sheldon and Adler. What melody can my frail harp bring forth that is comparable to their rich music? But the kind suffrage which has elevated me to this position imposes its obligations. I must speak to you of Divine Philosophy, as she appears to my own poor eyes, even when what I see differs from what is revealed to those that I revere most highly. And this has dictated my theme. The subject of vision and technique not only touches all our common philosophic interests and brings them into relation with the general intellectual temper and issues of our age, but also enables me to use my brief moment of authority to sound a warning against what seems to me an insidious danger to philosophy, a danger which neo-Romanticism and the genius of William James have served to strengthen. I mean the sharp contrast between vision and technique to the disparagement of the latter. Let me begin with the last point.
Years ago, when, with boyish ardor for economic science and zeal for social reform, I first approached the temple of philosophy, its official servitors and priests seemed to me too preoc____________________