"Empirical psychologists ... have denied the soul, save as the name for verifiable cohesions in our inner life. They redescend into the stream of experience with it, and cash it into so much small-change value in the way of 'ideas' and their connections with each other. The soul is good or '_true_' for just so much, but no more". (p. 92, italics mine). "Since almost any object may some day become temporarily important, the advantage of having a stock of extra truths, of ideas that shall be true of merely possible situations, is obvious.... Whenever such extra truths become practically relevant to one of our emergencies, it passes from cold storage to do work in the world and our belief in it grows active. You can say of it then either that _'it is useful because it is true' or that it is 'true because it is useful'_. _Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing_.... From this simple cue pragmatism gets her general notion of truth as something essentially bound up with the way in which one moment in our experience may lead us towards other moments _which it will be worth while to have been led to_. Primarily, and on the common-sense level, the truth of a state of mind means this function of _a leading that is worth while_". (pp. 204-205, italics mine). "To 'agree' in the widest sense with reality can only mean to be guided either straight up to it or into its surroundings, or to be put into such working touch with it as to handle either it or something connected with it better than if we disagreed. _Better either intellectually or practically!..._ An idea that helps us to deal, whether _practically or intellectually_, with either reality or its belongings, that doesn't entangle our progress in frustrations, that fits, in fact, and adapts our life to the reality's whole setting, will----hold true of that reality". (pp. 212-213). "'The true', to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in the way of our behaving. _Expedient in almost any fashion_; and expedient in the long run and on the whole of course". (p. 222). We may add a passage with the same bearing, from "The Meaning of Truth". In this quotation James is retracting the statement made in the University of California Address that without the future there is no difference between theism and materialism. He says: "Even if matter could do every outward thing that God does, the idea of it would not work as satisfactorily, because the chief call for a God on modern men's part is for a being who will inwardly recognize them and judge them sympathetically. Matter disappoints this craving of our ego, and so God remains for most men the truer hypothesis, and indeed remain so for definite pragmatic reasons". (p. 189, notes).