 Croce, mentioned earlier, rightly pointed out many similarities between his own and Dewey’s thought (Croce 1948). There were, however, still three points of serious contention: (1) Croce placed significantly more importance on the universality of art than Dewey, (2) he still insisted that the material of art consists not of external things but of internal sentiments of human passions: a characteristically idealist position that Dewey vehemently rejected, and (3) whereas he believed that art gives knowledge of a higher reality, Dewey did not. Croce asserted that Dewey is still arguing against Hegelians of his youth who held, for example, to a notion of “the Absolute”, which Croce had rejected. Dewey (1948), in responding to Croce, argued that the list of shared beliefs Croce mentioned in his review were just ideas widely familiar to aestheticians. He thought that because of Croce’s idealism there can be no common ground of discussion between them. In return, Croce (1952) argued that Dewey is too wedded to empiricism and pragmatism and that it is only because Dewey, contrary to his own claims, is committed to a kind of dualism, that he cannot understand Croce’s identification of intuition and expression or recognize how similar Croce’s view is to his own. Frederic Simoni (1952) argued that neither Croce nor Dewey was Hegelian in the sense of believing in the Absolute. George Douglas (1970) agreed with Simoni, finding many similarities between Dewey and Croce. However, Douglas did agree with Pepper (1939) that Dewey never reconciled the pragmatist and historicist (Hegelian) dimensions of his thought (cf. Vittorio 2012, Copenhaver 2017).