Now, to begin with, I think I know pretty well, in part at least, what Mr. Bradley means when he says that it is unreal. I think that part at least of what he means is just what he _ought_ to mean--just what anyone else would mean if he said that Time was unreal, and what any ordinary person would understand to be meant, if he heard those words. But I can conceive that, when I have explained as well as I can what this is that he _ought_ to mean, some people may be inclined to dispute whether he means any such thing at all. They may say that he is using the word "real" exclusively in some highly unusual and special sense, so that in asserting that "Time is unreal" he is by no means denying any part of what ordinary people would mean by saying that "Time is real." And that some special sense may _come in_ to his meaning I am prepared to admit. I do think it is possible that _part_ of what Mr. Bradley is asserting may be something which no unsophisticated person would think of expressing in the same way, and I will admit, therefore, that he does not, very likely, mean by "Time is unreal" _merely_ what other people would mean by this phrase, but something else _as well._ What, however, I cannot help thinking is that, even if he means something more, he _does_ mean what ordinary people would mean _as well_: that what they would mean is at least a _part_ of his meaning. And if even this is disputed, if it is maintained that he is using the words _exclusively_ in some special sense, I own I do not know how to argue the question. If anybody really does take the view that, when he says "Time is unreal," absolutely all that he means is something which is in no way incompatible with what most people would mean by saying "Time is real," I do not know how to show that this view is wrong. I can only say that if this _had_ been all that he meant, I cannot believe that he would have expressed his view in the form "Time is unreal." The only further argument I shall bring in favour of my view that he does mean what he ought to mean will take the form of an answer to one possible argument which might be brought against it. When I nave explained what he _ought_ to mean by saying that "Time is unreal," it will be quite clear that this is something which is in fact incompatible with the truth of the propositions that Time _is,_ or _exists,_ or _is a fact._ And it might be urged that the fact that it is thus incompatible is a strong argument against the view that Mr. Bradley does mean what he _ought_ to mean, since, if he had meant it, he could hardly have failed to perceive that what he meant _was_ inconsistent with these propositions, whereas, as we have seen, he certainly does not perceive this. I have an answer to that argument, which consists in giving an explanation, which I think a plausible one, as to how he could come to think that the propositions are _not_ inconsistent, when in fact they are.