It was inevitable that an International Congress should conceive the mission of philosophy in a generous sense; and very early in the Heidelberg meeting the cosmopolitan note made itself heard. The culture which philosophy is to foster was interpreted as the civilization that passes the boundaries of single states to include the various peoples who make up the world. Without derogation to the principle of nationality, it was felt that one service which philosophy, and in particular its International Congresses, may render, consists in the deepening of the sense of solidarity among the nations. To the development of this spirit the days of common work and friendship contributed in a practical way. No members of the Congress were more heartily welcomed than those who had come to Heidelberg from beyond the western frontier. The Germans in particular had arranged a graceful attention for their French colleagues. The anniversary of Sedan fell on the opening day of the session, but the usual celebration of the victory was this year omitted. In certain chauvinistic quarters criticism was aroused by the decision. It is safe to say, however, that few, if any members of the Congress shared this feeling. To us it rather seemed a cause for rejoicing that, in its measure, our coming together had made for the mitigation of international discords and tended to promote the peace of the world.
Among the special trends of philosophical opinion which the Congress exemplified, one was peculiarly noteworthy, the tendency to emphasize the selective, volitional, personal factors in thought and existence. This trend was shown in Croce's discussion of æsthetic intuition, for example, and by Windelband's use of the selective definition of phenomena in his analysis of natural law; it was notably illustrated by the prolonged and intense discussion of pragmatism and the pragmatic theory of truth, while in a different form it appeared in the "absolute pragmatism" of Royce's argument. No doubt this tendency is confronted by opposing forms of thought, as indeed it met with opposition in the discussions of the Congress itself. But its sharp distinction from many powerful currents of existing opinion only accentuates its significance. It is clear that the
