The question I wish to raise, which in my opinion is fundamental, concerns the conception Mr. Blanshard has of what, in his words, he is "trying to do in his philosophizing." Wittgenstein declared, in emphatic disagreement with many philosophers, that philosophical problems "are, of course, not empirical problems," which implies that philosophical views are not factual, not accounts of the existence or nature of things and occurrences. And this conception, which is so evidently in collision with Mr. Blanshard's, seems to (...) me correct. There are various ways of supporting it, as regards the doctrine that all relations are internal, but I call attention to one consideration which seems to me to carry great weight: that the metaphysician who holds this view cannot cite any conceivable case of things being externally related. The relations with which everyone is familiar are all alike counted as internal: no relation which we can bring forward would be accepted as constituting a counter instance. Nor can anyone who holds the view that all relations are internal describe a relation which he could count as being external. For in addition to such relations as north of and a mile from, what could be cited? A philosopher who declares that north of penetrates the being of its terms, and thus is as much an internal relation as entails, debars himself from saying what it would be like for things to be externally related. This shows that his view has, in principle, no falsification. For this reason I shall suppose that the proposition, "All things are internally related," is put forward as a priori, since it has what is the most characteristic feature of an a priori proposition, namely, that one cannot say what a confuting instance would be like. The following comments will be in part directed toward showing that the view that things are internally related is not about how things are related, but primarily the comments will be directed toward bringing out the linguistic character of the view. (shrink)