that Pilate, sitting in judgment, as doubtless he had many times before, asked, What is truth? and prudently did not stay for an answer. Fortunately we have come to accept the whole and its opposite as legal conventions and to ignore an historical range of philosophical and psychological objections that we can never know truth anyway, let alone whole of it. In life, truth appears as a relative thing, governed by circumstances and courts, while seemingly enforcing its absoluteness, are contributing to fact of its relativity. A judge's charge to a jury is full of admonishment to weigh and assess both facts and testimony; like his interpretation of points of law involved, they are a prima facie case for human fallibility. The world operates not on whole truths but on stand-by approximations to which more than practice of courtroom testifies. The more philosophic l of our scientists have accepted this view and look upon their conclusions as hypotheses, tentative statements to be succeeded by new hypotheses. Nothing is closed for them. Relativity is essential in their business or we should have no

Preview this article: The Validity of LiteratureThe Validity of Literature, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/30/8/collegeenglish20368-1.gif

Preview this article: Round Table, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/27/8/collegeenglish23188-1.gif

Curtis Dahl, James Schroeter, Paul R. Stewart, Donald E. Stanford, Edward P. J. Corbett, Robert W. Cochran, Robert Narveson, Warren S. Walker, William R. Manierre, Edgar M. Branch, J. E. M., Jr., Oscar Cargill, Hamlin Hill, Leo Gurko, Leon O. Barron, R. E. K., Ronald S. Berman, James Binney, Peter J. Seng, Virginia McDavid, Lester Hurt, Karl M. Murphy, G. Thomas Fairclough, Book Reviews, College English, Vol. 24, No. 6 (Mar., 1963), pp. 482-495