PROBABLY most readers of this journal would agree that inoculation against war is a proper part of education. The business of the soldier should be made to appear, not what it is in Hitler's speeches and in the newsreels of Mr. Hearst, but what it is in fact, a brutal and hateful business, kept alive by human unreason.

IN THE SOCIAL FRONTIER. December 1937, I wrote briefly on Metaphysics and Social Attitudes. In the last issue Mr. Sorokin took exception to my "half-truths." In the issue before it Mr. Hook buried me beneath an avalanche of nine reproachful columns. I do not wish to be ungrateful for so lavish an interment, but I am troubled a sense of being still alive and even cheerful. And am curious to know why.

LAST May a conference was held at the New School in New York of persons interested in the relation between philosophy and social change. Running through some of the speeches was an assumption that I found challenging. It was this: that there is some sort of inner connection between empiricism and liberalism on the one hand, and between rationalism and conservatism on the other. If you are a true liberal, interested in change and progress, a friend of the forgotten man, a questioner of the powers that be, then your philosophy, if you have one, will be empiricist and probably pragmatic. If your philosophy is of the opposite type, rationalistic and speculative, you will pretty certainly be found, in social matters, in the camp of the theories. This was taken as almost self-evident.