Pragmatism VIII

Pragmatism Lecture VIII – Pragmatism and Religion

As pragmatism will not reject anything with practical use to life, universal conceptions must be accounted for, as a use is a meaning. We must also remember, since our ancestors people have always argued the universal conceptions of the absolute by empirical means. Now James wants to start this last section with a poem by Walt Whitman titled ‘To You’, of which is much better read rather than summarized. James argues this can be taken either monistic or plural. Monistically, as a mystical piece it concerns cosmic emotions; a sentiment that ‘wherever you are you're safe’ and this is certainly pragmatically respected. But pragmatism tends more plural and ‘the you’ could have many more meanings relative to how the individual identifies; the you could be, you're better possibilities phenomenologically taken, the redemptive powers of failures, or even your loyalty to other possibilities, just to start. Next James shares an example of a friend that is willing to endure their children's suffering and even worse if they can rationalize their problems as supplemented by other worldly phenomenon and once doing this they can use it to operate in the world. James surely finds flaws in their stance but that it is a rather heartwarming expression of personal faith with a pragmatic and ameliorated intent; our concern is with pragmatism's notion of the world's possibilities. Rationalism intellectually invokes the conception of unity as the reason for the world's many facts and emotionally it uses unity as a reducer of possibilities. Thus, all good is certain and all evil is impossible and rather a means for the greater good, nearly ditching the classification of evil entirely. Now drawing a religious distinction between those who take the world as ‘must and shall be' saved and those as it ‘may be’ saved and this becomes a clash merely of validating possibilities. So pragmatic wise, what's the possibility? If we call something possible, what difference does it make? Well, if I choose to call it possible, I at least have rationalizations and contradictions to why someone argues it not possible or also another take on possibility meaning where there is a least a lack of an interference making something surely ‘not impossible’. However, we certainly prefer more concrete grounded possibilities. Logically if the correct conditions are present and without interfering conditions then something is possible. But also, if, X, a cat is possible it necessitates realities such as kittens, litter, etc. The more we find the more empirically grounded the possibility is, now becoming a fact. Now apply this to salvation pragmatically; thus at least some of the conditions for salvation do exist and the more we notice the less transparent are the preventing conditions thus concretely grounding possibilities as new facts. It is impossible for a person to be impartial here, surely, we all want to reduce universal insecurities, some people find salvation inevitable but of course others find it impossible. James aims in between the two to treat salvation as a possibility and not as a necessity or impossibility. We all favor certain conceptions and when life's complementary conditions combine then ideals become facts. These conditions act as a platform for us to act upon. So, do our acts create worldly salvation? James offers a fair point - why not? Our actions grow us and thus become our most intimate relations with life so, why overcomplicate this and not take salvation as the commonsense regard it presents itself? Actions become experiences of growth that we catch facts in the making. Surely, they have prior influences for being but not as a general whole other than typical growth. It is in parts that actions have a chance to arise, and it is the being that extends from that which grows in a location. Regardless of the vast number of factors, the only reason anything is ever to come is that someone wishes (or rather, wills) it should be here, something becomes demanded for relief. But, by wishes an individual must acknowledge others as well and thus also plurality and locational development of being and action. The wish function is as simple as things like if you want to get water then turn on the sink, if one needs some help then call someone, generally past wishing we do not need to do much more as the world is rationally organized enough to do the rest. James now addresses a thought experiment, if one met with creator prior to existence and is offered it as a worldly chance for experience without a guarantee of being saved, would you take this up? Or reject it as not safe enough? Certainly, we all have a sort of healthy minded notion that the universe would fit exactly as is and would accept this offer, and certainly others may not accept as the lack of safety removes the appeal. Surely, we all have breakdowns in life and would love the position as a ‘prodigal son’ to fall back in the embrace of the absolute of the universe. So, the security of never being born v possibilities never experienced. James argues that those seeking Nirvana, the cessation of life, are merely afraid of life. Thus, the religious monists embrace life as being necessary, one, and well. Now, turning back to the contrast of absolute appeal of the tender minded and the pluralistic appeal of the tough minded; the toughs pluralistic could even just be called moralistic and not religious, but in either use James argues it is hard to not keep some seriousness composed in life and the reality in either, as religious or moralistic, is still decided in our faith rather than logic as we have to enjoy life's adventures, experiences, and the facts that arise. Going back, those that accepted the creators offer do not avoid evil but rather face it as something to be overcome they do this by dropping it altogether and forgetting it from their universal conception. Thus, in becoming a rationalist to a universe to take it seriously is a true pragmatist by living with the undetermined. But what else must they account for? Other people, sure. Other gods? Certainly, they could just be manifestations of the true monotheistic God. So, factors can be sorted into truths. Pragmatically speaking and with the broad use, if the term God works for things, then it is truth. Differences to this are to be dealt with as they arise, continuing the truth process. James argues we as humans are not the greatest experience of reality in the universe and see us on relations with the rest of the universe and its other creatures, of which share many intentions that we interweave with social realities. With the proofs of religious experience discussed here we certainly would agree that to a vast number of creatures of varying intentions and needs there are certainly the realities of higher powers constantly operating within the world. So, one can call pragmatism religious but only as pluralistic or melioristic, but to then accept it is relative to the individual to decide. Our various overhanging beliefs plus our adventures are all that is necessary for proof of facts formed. In one's own adventuring if they are radically tough then nature itself should suffice, if radically tender then a more monistic religious approach would help better than a pluralistic but as many of us often fall in between the two then the pluralistic/moralistic option is pragmatically best. Between crude naturalism and the transcendental absolutism lies the pragmatism, or the meliorism, of religion.

Thoughts: Concerning the Walt Whitman poem; this piece feels conceivably true on a commonsense regard but truly to try a critical view on it would just be an injustice as we clearly know this is not well argued empirically. Thus, we cannot cross commonsense and the empirical and must accept this poem for the commonsense truths that arise. Thus, even just a poem like this is one's own mystical journey. James makes it clear with this, for mysticism, what some points of departure are. The more we recognize the more we can acknowledge and the more mystical our lives can be to our own desire. This is only so much clearer by his argument of actions and wishes. To the poem, it can also be viewed in a mystical lens or also a psychological lens, either work at least as a folk psychology of reputable results. Thus, some may say they have an inner monologue they converse with, and others may call it a soul and partake on a subjective adventure of a reality relative to that present headspace.

-I was a big fan of the conception of supplementing phenomenon and to me it highlighted the possible practical values of religious behavior. Say a person works out for anger, takes walks for fun, and has sex for sexual relief; the first two they could do a variety of other things to arguably meet the same release for either anger or fun, but the physical body is necessary for sexual relief. However, if prayer, for example, could substitute sexual desires truly by the individual standards and in good faith then that is remarkable the practical value in religious behaviors. Truth in sex satisfied in prayer is a true reality as much as the gym satisfies anger for Bob.

-If X is possible, it necessitates realities if a chicken is real there must be eggs, hens, food, etc.; the more we find, the more empirically grounded it is and becomes a fact. I mean, concerning all these lectures James aim has been similar in establishing the reality of pragmatism by pointing out pragmatism’s necessary realities. Surely if we believe in simple categorical conception that also necessitates religious reality. By seeing X number of events hold religious value in people's lived experience they establish the connections to make the possible a continuously adapting fact.

-So, the security of never being born v the possibilities of experiences. I found this a great thought tool; getting older I've really begun to wrestle with the former but without inquiry deeper I was only miserable wrestling with it and I find it essential, if relativity allows, to think it through. In doing so I found both components necessitate each other and are connected. If I think through my full list of thoughts within these systems I find value in the totality of the connection and truth not only in the bad but also the good. I find life better as a light wave than a particle and I cannot look at these great conceptions of life in freeze frame. They must be lived and lived with momentum, it is ok to slow the momentum it is just about the balance.

-I highly agree that within certain spheres of reality we need to ditch the conception of evil in its entirety. A decent example is when viewing animals in nature.

-I also certainly find religion pragmatically valid and James's take on all of this rather life changing, not only for myself but my perceptual lens of the social world that I live in with others.

--Seth Graves-Huffman