24

φαν19

as set forth in my paper on the System (Monist, Vol. XVI, pp. 525–
527) a defect capable of being remedied. If it be not so, if the
lack of “pictorialness” in the representation of modality cannot be
remedied, it is because modality has, in truth, the nature which
I opined it has (which opinion I expressed toward the end
of the footnote on p. 525 of the article just referred to;) and if that
be the case, Modality is not, properly speaking, conceivable at all,
but the difference, for example, between possibility and actuality
is only recognizable much in the same way as we recognize
the difference between a dream
and a waking experience, supposing the dream to be ever so detailed,
reasonable, and thoroughly consistent with itself and with all the
rest of the dreamer's experience. Namely, it still would not be so
“vivid” as waking experience. Now what is “vividness”? Hume in