In his review of James’s classical work upon Pragmatism, Dewey, while indicating a number of debatable points in the pragmatist philosophy, declares emphatically his belief in that philosophy as a method of “orientation.” The title again of Peirce’s famous pamphlet was _How to make Ideas Clear_--a phrase of itself suggestive enough of the inquiring mind of the young student when oppressed by apparently conflicting and competing points of view. “We are acquainted with a thing,” says James, “as soon as we have learned how to behave towards it, or how to meet the behaviour we accept from it.” In one of his books he talks about physics, for example, as giving us not so much a theory about things as a “practical acquaintance” with bodies; “the power to take hold of them and handle them,” indicating at the same time his opinion that this way of regarding knowledge should be extended to philosophy itself. All of this will serve as a proof or illustration of the essentially “practical” and “methodological” conception of philosophy taken by the pragmatists. Papini refers, we remember, to the pragmatist philosophy as a power of “commanding our material,” of “manipulating” for practical purposes the different “thought-constructions” of the history of philosophy. And those who have any familiarity with the early pragmatist magazine literature know that the pragmatists used to be fond of asking themselves such preliminary and “laboratory-like” inquiries as the following: “What is truth _known as_?” “What is philosophy _known as_?” “What are the different ‘thought-levels’ upon which we seem to move in our ordinary experience?” They never exactly seem to “define” philosophy for you, preferring to indicate what it can _do_ for you, and so on.