On William James and Pragmatism-
So a couple weeks back we
talked about this interesting question of the squirrel and the hunter. For those of you that do not remember, a
hunter is standing in front of a tree that squirrel is clinging onto on the opposite
side. When the squirrel moves left, the
hunter moves an equal amount left so that the two never see each other. The question is then presented, is the hunter
circling around the squirrel or not? He
does circle the tree, which the squirrel is on, but does not actually circle
the squirrel itself. William James, an
American philosopher, might have said, ‘Who cares?’ With so many other philosophers that we have
studied in class, I chose William James because of his straight forward
approach to problems—called Pragmatism in philosophy.
The books we have been
assigned in class do not really touch on it much, but James had a terrible
life. The man had back, eye, skin, and
stomach problems. He was diagnosed with
several different psychological disorders and contemplated suicide on multiple
occasions. At age 24, he contracted
smallpox, which was still among the leading causes of death at the time. That time, of course, was 1860's America—which
was during the Civil War; not a great time at all. In a bit of irony, James received a medical
doctorine degree from Harvard but decides instead to become a psychologist, with
which he had no schooling. It is my
belief, however, that individuals such as James are among the best suited for
the psychology and philosophy fields because of the struggles they have encountered
in life.
Pragmatism was created by
a man named C.S. Pierce, who wanted to try and back up all the psychological
questions with scientific answers. Like
many other things in life, even though he created it, it did not gain much
attention until William James started writing about it in his mid – 20’s. James was a gifted writer. So much so that in 1890, he wrote a 1200 page
book about the topic of psychology. In
the above question of the squirrel and the hunter, James might try and answer
it by stating scientific facts about the situation in both cases. However, James believed that if the end
result was trivial, it did not matter what you believed, so again, ‘who cares?’ If it would somehow make a difference, as he
claimed had ‘cash value’, your belief would be right either way as long you
thought that way and made sense to you.
Which to me is quite a bit different outlook than most philosophers, who
would want you to believe what they say and question everything.
Of course, with this kind
of approach, it became easy to see why so many Americans looked favorably to
his viewpoint; American citizens wanted to exercise their freedom of speech and
believe what they wanted and not something forced upon them. If you believed God was real, then indeed he
was. If not, then there was no God. It is interesting to note that James at one
time wished that if there was indeed a God and Heaven, he could be the one to
turn non-believers, like those of Pascal, away.
For someone that emphasized personalized beliefs and free will, he did not have much sympathy for those who chose poorly.
It would also be easy to point
out the flaws in James’ arguments. A British
philosopher, Bertrand Russell, suggested that by agreeing with James, nothing
would be out of reach. Santa Claus, the
Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Boogie Man would all be real because
children all believe they are real. Aliens
exist as well because they can presumably be the only answer to unexplained
phenomena. While this might easily be
true for some people in life, James reminds us that what is good for the goose
is not always good for the gander; i.e., to each his or her own.
References-
A Little History of Philosophy, Nigel Warburton
Philosophy: the basics, Nigel Warburton
Justin
Section 14
Good! But James's squirrel story is about hikers, not hunters. What have those squirrels ever done to us, but teach us the pragmatic method?
ReplyDelete"For someone that emphasized personalized beliefs and free will, he did not have much sympathy for those who chose poorly" - actually James had a ton of sympathy for those whose alternative beliefs were rooted in their own personal experience rather than (say) a contrived philosophical argument... hence his disdain for Pascal. In general, though, he said he saw his task as a philosopher to be that of defending experience (and those who have it) AGAINST philosophy.
ReplyDeleteOne more little thing: James had plenty of maladies, chief among them a recurrent tendency to what we call depression. But on balance I'd say he had a wonderful life, an exemplary one showing how a person can turn adversity to advantage.
If you're interested, I recommend Robert Richardson's biography of James: http://www.amazon.com/William-James-Maelstrom-American-Modernism/dp/0618919899
I agree with his ability to turn adversity into an advantage. And maybe because of his outlook, he enjoyed life. I wouldn't say that on paper, however.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, lives aren't lived on paper. Read his personal correspondence, you'll see clear evidence of his joie de vivre.
ReplyDelete