ABSTRACT
Unfortunately, Chisholm presents his views in a series of definitions constructed on the basis of a minimum philosophical vocabulary that presupposes a controversial ontology of "eternal objects." To understand what he wishes to convey by most of his definitions, one has to consult further definitions, working one's way back to those containing expressions from his minimum vocabulary. And then, to relate the views expressed in his minimum vocabulary to the subject in which one is interested, one has to relate that subject to his special ontology. Since I do not wish to spend time working through his definitions and relating them to the alleged direct awareness of the self, I shall informally explain his leading ideas on this subject and then comment on just a couple of his definitions.
