Pragmatism VII

Pragmatism Lecture 7-Pragmatism and Humanism

Humans commonly aim to see truth as a single conception. James now wants to address truth as less of an inquiry and more as an abstract concept summarizing the plural truths in the world. People use language tools every day to insinuate truths as existing greater than their actual boundaries, an example being how people personify weather. We think we are always uncovering new truths but rather it seems rights, wrongs, and truths are added as history continues, thus making language and law man made. James next aims to model his position in relation to Schiller in that he believes pragmatism is better off as a humanism since truths are man made and it also seems impossible imagining a world prior to humans. So, we must treat it as a composition and thus plastic, and in doing so we must aim to test its boundaries. James aims to defend this humanist position. In this regard we should view truths as beliefs about an independent reality and regard reality as being that which truth must account for because of the next several reasons. One, we have the flux of our sensations constantly occurring without our choice, its not that they are true or false but rather ‘just are’. Two, reality is what truth must account for as we see relations exchanged between senses or copies in the mind, either mutable like dates or also fixed and essential in reality. Third, we cannot forget the prior truths existing that past inquiries must account for. These three are always participating in belief formation but in concerning these, we only have so much human freedom. Sensations are beyond control, but we can take mental notes relative to our own interests. Reality is as it is, but we take it in X way relative to our perspective thus, senses tell us nothing of truth in itself rather it is us that speaks truth as we do. This concerns our eternal truths as well; new experiences adjust and rearrange intrinsic beliefs, and this continues until nearly all ones beliefs are man-made. Our first two facts, the random flux of senses and the relations exchanged between minds from senses and copies in minds, both show a reality rather free of man-made influence but must then be humanized, compacted and adjusted, to the human mass. Concerning reality independent of humans, James finds this worse as an inquiry and better as a mental reference point. Concerning our beliefs about reality it is near impossible to separate our human relations. Is a chessboard black with white squares or vice versa? Neither is more true or false than the other. What about differing constellation names? No name for them is truer than another rather, they are human made factors that reality agrees with. Even the concept ‘thing’ is used to sort realities into trues and falses; it’s a humanistic principle when you can see human practicalities. Now, as we grow surely our flux of senses will calm but is there a greater or lesser degree of value? Well maybe it is not that we absorb the truths of reality but rather, we add descriptions to reality and thus altering its truth conception. Now, to contrast, rationalists see reality as ready made and complete, while pragmatists see it as a process in the making and heading towards completion. An alternative to these two would have to concern the structure of the universe. With rationalists seeing it as complete and pragmatism seeing it as becoming, we are back to a monism v pluralism. In wrestling with these two temperaments, we need something to anchor the finite, as behind every fact we trust the causation to hold consistent, this ideal is a factor that solidifies the universe, our anchor. An anchor is a common abstraction to divide the tough and tenderminded as well. For the tough, there is no real anchor, and the rationalists are merely using words as an anchor. However, we do see both use it as a summarizing tool of totality but it is just bizarre how differently people can take something as being abstract or concrete. Should pragmatism make use of this eternal view of the background conception that anchors the finite? Surely, we do still use the word winter despite some warm nights; it’s a good abstraction tool that we use for a vast number of human realities. For absolutists that take the world as complete, they are met with a deterministic reality and end up taking its truths as concrete rather than abstract. Either way appropriately would be pragmatic as they both show pragmatic value aimed at readjusting their personal agreement with reality. Taking the world that was prior to humans as being either abstract or concrete, that has any value to life, shows its meaning and thus some truth about it. Even the absolutists ideal of the eternally real has meaning, as James will address in the next lecture.

Thoughts- I am sure we all have a tendency to want to trust in pragmatism as a humanism, but James does show it has many criticisms and, thankfully, is here to help defend pragmatism. I understood the lecture fairly well but not so much the critics in it directly and would enjoy chatting about that. This piece also makes it seem essential in accepting the world as it is and as we are (limited humans) and then how we navigate with that. By this the influence of human realities and also the humanistic factors of pragmatic truths seem logically inescapable thus, hard to imagine a non-humanistic reality from James’s take. So, in making his point it felt a bit over-reductionist, but I do understand it to be in reaction to critics so in general that is why I would enjoy chatting about it.

    --Seth Graves-Huffman