I think, perhaps, the point I want to insist on can be brought out in this way. I have just said that we have pointed out one particular one, and that the most important, among the conceptions for which the term "reality" may stand; and that is an excusable way of saying what we have done. But it would, I think, be more correct to say that we have pointed out one particular, and that the most important, usage of the terms "real" and "unreal," and that one of the peculiarities of this usage is that it is such that the terms "real" and "unreal" cannot, when used in this way, be properly said to stand for any conception whatever. I will try to explain what I mean. We have said that what "Lions are real" _means_ is that some particular property or other--I will say, for the sake of brevity, _the_ property of being a lion, though that is not strictly accurate, does In fact _belong to_ some-thing--that there are things which have it, or, to put it in another way, that the conception of being a lion is a conception which does apply to some things--that there are things which _fall under_ it. And similarly what "Unicorns are _unreal"_ means is that the property of being a unicorn belongs to _nothing_. Now, if this is so, then it seems to me, in a very important sense, "real" and "unreal" do _not_ in this usage stand for any conceptions at all. The only _conceptions_ which occur in the proposition "Lions are real" are, on this interpretation, plainly, (1) the conception of being a lion, and (2) the conception of belonging to something, and perfectly obviously "real" does not stand for either of these. In the case of the first that is obvious; but it is worth while pointing out that it is also true of the second.