But once more, this inviting way out of the difficulty needs only to be tried to reveal its own contradictions. The thought that says, “No judgment is true beyond itself,” is that thought true beyond itself or not? If it is true beyond itself, then we have the possibility of other truth than the merely subjective or relative truth. If it is false, then equally we have objective falsity. If it is neither true nor false, then the doctrine of relativity has not been affirmed at all as a truth. One sets up an idea of a world of separate, disorganized thoughts, and then says, “Each of them deals only with its own object, and they have no unity that could make them true or false.” But still this world that one thus sets up must be the true world. Else is there no meaning in the doctrine of relativity. Twist as one will, one gets not out of the whirlpool of thought. Error must be real, and yet, as common sense arranges these judgments and their relations to one another, error cannot be real. There is so far no escape.
The perfectly general character of the argument must be understood. One might escape it if it applied to any one class of errors only. Then one would say: “In fact, the class of cases in question may be cases that exclude the possibility of both truth and error.” But no, that cannot be urged against us, for our argument applies equally to all possible errors. In short, either no error at all is possible, or else there must be possible an infinite mass of error. For the possibilities of thought being infinite, either all thought is excluded once for all from the possibility of error, or else to every possi-
