Comments on Pragmatism I-II

 Posted for Seth Graves-Huffman

Pragmatism Lectures 1 and 2

William James' Pragmatism lectures are an excellent segway into religion's practical purpose in human lives and in the field of philosophical pragmatism. In his first lecture, James argues the history of philosophy arose from human discourse concerning individual human temperaments. Most of us may be flexible but James pushes that we should use strong philosophical temperaments, in learning our own. The primary temperaments he mentions are those of rationalist, or as he calls tender minded thinkers, and empiricists, the tough minded. Tendered minded define as generally religious, free willing, and dogmatic while tough minded defines as generally pessimistic, pluralistic, and skeptical. James argues we are in an empirical boom where people are very scientific in thought and religion is neutralizing and in such an age humans role of importance has diminished. Generally it has been in the tendered minded and religious nature to be active concerning the conception of life however todays empirical has created a strong human passivity. As for James it is human spirituality that endures adaption and accommodation. His aim? Combine this with the scientific loyalty to facts. James also mentions a main aim for philosophy is refinement, but is refinement truly a part of the crude world? Surely not, thus philosophy obsessed with refinement is not truly empirical. This is an example of the satisfaction of rational minds in unreal systems. The universe is not closed and thus cannot be answered with closed concepts. James argues in his contemporary that people are becoming pragmatic in reality and philosophy should as well. James argues it is hard to hate on rational escapism as, as reality is not the conceptual, but, are all theories not escapism? He does argue that philosophy is excluded as its intent is against escapism of reality. However, if philosophy can abstract universal principles than it must also accept the abstraction of philosophy. The universal system of the absolute shows how unique people actually are and we should praise such individual temperaments. 

Lecture 2, What Pragmatism Means, starts out with an example. A person is chasing a squirrel around the tree but the squirrel goes so fast he does not see it. Does he go round the squirrel? James says yes and no, just depending on how you define it. Concerning the earth? The person goes north to east to south to west, thus passing the squirrel. Or relatively speaking from his vision, he never passes the squirrel. Both are true, but how do we pick which one? James refers to the Pragmatic Method, or that we should interpret by tracing consequences. If there is no practical difference he calls it an idle dispute. For a dispute to be serious it must show a practical difference. Any positive significance found is pragmatic. Say, how could the world be different if X or Y were true? If I can find no practical difference than the alternative is senseless. Here James argues, the point of philosophy ought to be what makes a distinct difference in our lives and experiences if we hold a certain cosmology as true. For many they do this merely with words be it either magical or secular, words such as God, matter, even energy. When you have any of these one can 'rest' conceptually and not worry. Theories look less like answers and more like tools. Pragmatism is multiversitile, it interconnects people reading atheisms, religious followers praying, meta practitioners, and even scientific doctors. By this James refers to pragmatism as moreso an attitude of orientation. Our ancient ancestors of course preformed empirical tests but they deciphered them as the work of the divine. They did this because these things worked for them if only being vague approximations. However, one could argue all of our scientific findings today are merely approximations. The point is that if from a particular point of view it proves useful, than it is pragmatic. Truth in our ideas means their power to work. Next James talks about 'new opinions' and that these come from a troubled mind in a strange mental place. The persons aim? Escape this by modifying past opinions. In this, James regards pragmatism as a 'genetic theory' linking new facts to past opinions. Much of rationalism developed for pragmatic means and pragmatism does not object to abstractions as long as it minds reality and takes you somewhere. For many this is simply comfort. In trusting the infinite divine one can forgo moral responsibilities in what James calls a 'moral vacation'.

I found this reading highly comforting in itself. James makes it very persuasive to understand the divine in a secular lens. I found a large fascination through my own curiosity of individual subjective experience in my secular context versus the experience of a devout religious follower. However, James makes it rather simple that one can be devout in science as well. His conception of religious pragmatism is so encaptivating that almost everything seems religious. Or rather, maybe he is showing us that its not about the words and conception being correct but rather a persons belief in the causation. As we do that with science many others do that with religion. However, the point is about individuals having an adequate and appreciated subjective. Just like James says, if it satisfies my individual appreciation than it is pragmatic and this may personally help me to analyze areas I do not find actual appreciation in my own personal beliefs and to consider pragmatically changing them. This connects well with his conception of 'moral holidays', and that's a rather strong concept to envy. By James, maybe I should not envy it but allow my mind in a strange place and find my own temperament of the same world we all live in. Concerning James, can we truly take moral holidays in a secular cosmology? Was James able to practice his own prescriptive pragmatism? Should we truly seek less moderate temperaments? These are concerns still sitting with me.

--Seth Graves-Huffman