There are, doubtless, hints in Dr. Bosanquet’s pages of a more “dynamic” view of mind or of a deeper view[347] than this merely “representational” view, but they are not developed or worked into the main portion of his argument, which they would doubtless very largely transform. This is greatly to be regretted, for we remember that even Hegel seemed to notice the splitting-up of the real for our human purposes which takes place in the ordinary judgment. And of course, as we have noticed, all “purpose” is practical and theoretical at one and the same time. Then, thirdly, it is persons, and not “minds,” who desire and purpose things, “mind” being a concept invented by the spectator of activity in a person other than himself, which (from the analogy of his own conscious activity and experience) he believes to be purposive.[348] Dr. Bosanquet’s use, too, of the expression “mind” invariably leaves out of the range of consideration the phenomena of desire and volition--intelligible, both of them, only by reference to an end that is to be understood from within, and not from outside of the personality, from the point of view of the mere spectator. The phenomena of desire and volition are just as integral ingredients of our lives as persons as are our cognitive states. Fourthly, it is doubtful whether the treatment of teleology as “wholeness” (or its sublimation in “Individuality and Value” into “wholeness”) is much of an explanation of this difficult topic, or indeed whether it is any explanation at all. Dr. Bosanquet, in fact, confesses that teleology is a conception which “_loses its distinctive meaning_ as we deepen its philosophical interpretation, and that it has very little meaning when applied to the universe as a whole” [a thing that is apparent to any Kantian student]. “It is impossible seriously,” he says, “to treat a mind _which is the universe_[!] as a workman of limited resources, aiming at some things and obliged to accept others as means to these.” And it is equally impossible, he holds, to apply “to the universe” the distinction of “what is purpose for its own sake and what is not so.” In fact, Dr. Bosanquet’s treatment of teleology is thus mainly negative, as including not only this rejection[349] of the notion in reference to the “universe as a whole,” but its rejection, too, in reference to the purposes of our human life;[350] although he admits (as of course he must) that the conception of end or purpose is drawn from some of the features (“the simplest features,” he says) of our “finite life,” or “finite consciousness.” If the notion were “to be retained at all,” he says, “it could only be a name for some principle which would help to tell us what has _value quite independent of being or not being, the purpose of some mind_.”[351] Now, of course, according to the Pragmatism and Humanism that we have been considering in this book, no intelligent person could take any conceivable interest