12 ms·

William James and the philosophy of pragmatism (2018)

102 points by prismatic 2y ago

User23 2y ago
The 19th century American pragmatists are, in my opinion, the most consequential philosophical school ever. James, Holmes, Peirce, and others did remarkable work. They fully embraced the natural philosophy, which would come to be called science, in a way that many of their former peers didn't.
- deepnet 2y ago
  Yes, we can but try, and ( only ) in trying find it so. For better or for worse. Fascinating man and pragmatic scholar, James. Empirical and stoic
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
backtoyoujim 2y ago
"The Metaphysical Club" is a great book about this subject and these folks.
- wslh 2y ago
  I completely agree, this is one of the greatest books on the subject. I highly recommend checking out its Goodreads page [1] for reviews and more context. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5519635-the-metaphysical-club https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5519635-the-metaphysical...
  - User23 2y ago
    It's strange how the standard American History classes pretty much ignore the late 19th century. It was a time of real intellectual flourishing in America. With the notable exception of Benjamin Franklin, it's when American scientists really became globally relevant rather than smart folks who more or less just stayed kept up with European advances. Peano cited Peirce as his inspiration for the logical notation we now use today. And Gibbs[1] was one of the fathers of modern thermodynamics. While writing this comment I learned that Gibbs shared Peirce's interest in graphical notations. They're interesting to me, because in a lot of ways they feel clunkier than traditional mathematical formulae, but when they work, boy do they ever work well. Feynman diagrams are maybe the most well known example. I'm pretty sure there are millions waiting to be made with a good AI powered diagrammatic IDE. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs
zoom6628 2y ago
Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then understand. About 2000 years before Americans. But maybe I'm biased or ignorant. Happy to be enlightened (pun intended).
- ta8645 2y ago
  My impression is that Buddhism has a focus on "inner life" rather than the material world. So their pragmatism would naturally be employed on spiritual attainment, rather than science. After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion.
  - rramadass 2y ago
    > After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion. There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe. Here is wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
    - ta8645 2y ago
      > There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. On top of which, you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago.
      - hmm37 2y ago
        I suppose it depends on which branch of Buddhism people are talking about. There are obviously some which practice extreme idealism, but almost all branches believe that reality (as we commonly define it) DOES exist, but merely that it's a changing reality, rather than a truth that remains forever true, thus unchanging.
bigbacaloa 2y ago
[dead]
rramadass 2y ago
Good Article, Excerpts; James claimed that the best educated mind has the largest stock of ideas and concepts “ready to meet the largest possible variety of the emergencies of life.” Pragmatism was a method for making decisions, testing beliefs, settling arguments. In a world of chance and incomplete information, James insisted that truth was elusive but action mandatory. The answer: Make a decision and see if it works. Try a belief and see if your life improves. Don’t depend on logic and reason alone, add in experience and results. Shun ideology and abstraction. Take a chance. “Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events.” Of course, some philosophers were skeptical of pragmatism. Truth becomes whatever is useful, whatever has cash value. Bertrand Russell was terrified that pragmatism would dethrone the ideal of objective truth, calling it “a form of the subjective madness which is characteristic of most modern philosophy.” Pragmatism to these skeptics encourages relativism and subjectivity and leads to irrationalism. Pragmatism is the enemy of certainty, simplification, and fanaticism. It champions skepticism, experimentation, and tolerance. If, for an individual, faith leads to peace and security, banishes loneliness, increases endurance, and improves behavior, it can be said to be true for that individual. In all areas of life, we are acting on insufficient evidence. If religion increased happiness, encouraged ethical behavior, and offered eternal life, why not gamble? “How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness is in fact for most men at all time the secret motive of all they do, and of all they are willing to endure.”
tppiotrowski 2y ago
> In “The Gospel of Relaxation,” James applies psychological insights to everyday concerns. Limit introspection: don’t become a prisoner of morbid feelings. To feel brave, act brave. To become cheerful, smile and laugh. Today known as "fake it till you make it" Or my personal version: "Action creates motivation, not the other way around"
- card_zero 2y ago
  To reduce anger, don't vent.
skeptrune 2y ago
I've always enjoyed the idea of "pragmatic truth". I'm probably misquoting a bit, but generally take it to mean "truth is what's most useful to your long term goals."
- Barrin92 2y ago
  I'm sceptical of that definition of truth funnily enough for the reason that James (and you) endorse it: "Pragmatism had another benefit. It allowed for God.[...]If religion increased happiness, encouraged ethical behavior, and offered eternal life, why not gamble?" To me that's an almost canonical example of what's wrong with this notion of truth. I can accept that people have faith in God, even for unexplainable reasons on intuition, or don't, but the truth about God can't depend on whether that belief has value to me. If that's the case, God might very well cease to exist based on my mood. And that is so solipsistic it's arguably the exact opposite of a truthful worldview. If there's one thing in the world that can't be contingent on my expectation, it's by definition God. And that's arguably what's wrong with pragmatic truth on all issues, it's just less obvious.
geye1234 2y ago
I mean, there are some insights and useful advice here, but did he really think the following?: > "Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events." Aside from the obvious self-contradiction here, counterexamples are infinite. > If, for an individual, faith leads to peace and security, banishes loneliness, increases endurance, and improves behavior, it can be said to be true for that individual. It can be said to be useful for that person, but not true. Perhaps I'm missing something? -- I'm aware I'm only reading a summary. > Our emotions, our temperaments, and our current states of mind do affect our ideas. They can, if you let them. (At least up to a point: hopefully they won't lead you to think that 2+2=5.) It doesn't follow that our ideas are determined by these factors. Nor does it remove the distinction between a good and a bad idea (a good idea being one which agrees with reality, ie one that is true). > In a world of chance and incomplete information, James insisted that truth was elusive but action mandatory. Complete truth is elusive, and action is indeed mandatory, but a degree of truth is attainable, and an action is only good insofar as it's informed thereby. Traditional philosophy says you need to find the truth and then modify your desires in accordance therewith. Here he seems to be saying the opposite. Again, I'm aware I'm just reading a TLDR, and I don't deny that there is useful practical advice here.
- o_nate 2y ago
  I don't think James would deny that there are many cases where our simple black and white view of truth as something existing in the world independently of what we think of it is perfectly adequate, however, pragmatism is intended to deal with the more difficult cases, those cases in which philosophers find themselves at loggerheads about the nature of truth. When the question seems impossible to resolve, James's advice is to try and think in terms of what the practical consequences of a belief would be.
  - geye1234 2y ago
    Thanks. I don't think this resolves the problem though, since whether or not the practical consequences of a belief are considered desirable will depend on one's philosophy, ie what one considers to be true. ISTM that perception of reality -- what one considers to be true -- will always determine belief about goodness/desirability. James, if I understand correctly, seems to get it in reverse: let your desire determine 'your' truth, ie your perception of reality.
ngcc_hk 2y ago
There are two major kind of truth at last. - You drop an apple. 1+1 =2; e^ix -1=0 … - You drive left or right side. You speak English, chinese … Both are reality but of different kind. Yes can go to space or do modular maths. You can drive on the left when everyone drive on the right. Or one day someone decide better switch as this colonial. But these two or more have different nature. ** You are moral right to do so is beyond truth, fact, … dictate. It is likely subjective and anti human nature. It does not based on external rule or what others impose on us. You have to decide. But then you cannot just let yourselves go, … you do not need to be Catholic or Christian to know human can do 7 sins. Just “let it goes” is where dark queen bring cold to the world. Human is only partially normal. ** Buddhism … last 3 years struggle with Tibetan kind and still not sure my Tracher insist the world does not exist. Always think the world exist, but not as you think and one should not be attached to it. ** Always in mix state you are not pure whatever religion or philosophy you subscribe to - either incomplete or inconsistent, always act with and in uncertainty withlong term consequences unknown, values and keep on changing perspective both yourselves, your group and humanity as a whole … that is human condition … and we all die.

102 points by prismatic 2y ago

The 19th century American pragmatists are, in my opinion, the most consequential philosophical school ever. James, Holmes, Peirce, and others did remarkable work. They fully embraced the natural philosophy, which would come to be called science, in a way that many of their former peers didn't.

deepnet 2y ago
Yes, we can but try, and ( only ) in trying find it so. For better or for worse. Fascinating man and pragmatic scholar, James. Empirical and stoic
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

backtoyoujim 2y ago

"The Metaphysical Club" is a great book about this subject and these folks.

wslh 2y ago
I completely agree, this is one of the greatest books on the subject. I highly recommend checking out its Goodreads page [1] for reviews and more context. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5519635-the-metaphysical-club https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5519635-the-metaphysical...
- User23 2y ago
  It's strange how the standard American History classes pretty much ignore the late 19th century. It was a time of real intellectual flourishing in America. With the notable exception of Benjamin Franklin, it's when American scientists really became globally relevant rather than smart folks who more or less just stayed kept up with European advances. Peano cited Peirce as his inspiration for the logical notation we now use today. And Gibbs[1] was one of the fathers of modern thermodynamics. While writing this comment I learned that Gibbs shared Peirce's interest in graphical notations. They're interesting to me, because in a lot of ways they feel clunkier than traditional mathematical formulae, but when they work, boy do they ever work well. Feynman diagrams are maybe the most well known example. I'm pretty sure there are millions waiting to be made with a good AI powered diagrammatic IDE. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs

zoom6628 2y ago

Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then understand. About 2000 years before Americans. But maybe I'm biased or ignorant. Happy to be enlightened (pun intended).

ta8645 2y ago
My impression is that Buddhism has a focus on "inner life" rather than the material world. So their pragmatism would naturally be employed on spiritual attainment, rather than science. After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion.
- rramadass 2y ago
  > After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion. There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe. Here is wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
  - ta8645 2y ago
    > There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. On top of which, you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago.
    - hmm37 2y ago
      I suppose it depends on which branch of Buddhism people are talking about. There are obviously some which practice extreme idealism, but almost all branches believe that reality (as we commonly define it) DOES exist, but merely that it's a changing reality, rather than a truth that remains forever true, thus unchanging.

bigbacaloa 2y ago

[dead]

rramadass 2y ago

Good Article, Excerpts; James claimed that the best educated mind has the largest stock of ideas and concepts “ready to meet the largest possible variety of the emergencies of life.” Pragmatism was a method for making decisions, testing beliefs, settling arguments. In a world of chance and incomplete information, James insisted that truth was elusive but action mandatory. The answer: Make a decision and see if it works. Try a belief and see if your life improves. Don’t depend on logic and reason alone, add in experience and results. Shun ideology and abstraction. Take a chance. “Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events.” Of course, some philosophers were skeptical of pragmatism. Truth becomes whatever is useful, whatever has cash value. Bertrand Russell was terrified that pragmatism would dethrone the ideal of objective truth, calling it “a form of the subjective madness which is characteristic of most modern philosophy.” Pragmatism to these skeptics encourages relativism and subjectivity and leads to irrationalism. Pragmatism is the enemy of certainty, simplification, and fanaticism. It champions skepticism, experimentation, and tolerance. If, for an individual, faith leads to peace and security, banishes loneliness, increases endurance, and improves behavior, it can be said to be true for that individual. In all areas of life, we are acting on insufficient evidence. If religion increased happiness, encouraged ethical behavior, and offered eternal life, why not gamble? “How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness is in fact for most men at all time the secret motive of all they do, and of all they are willing to endure.”

tppiotrowski 2y ago

> In “The Gospel of Relaxation,” James applies psychological insights to everyday concerns. Limit introspection: don’t become a prisoner of morbid feelings. To feel brave, act brave. To become cheerful, smile and laugh. Today known as "fake it till you make it" Or my personal version: "Action creates motivation, not the other way around"

card_zero 2y ago
To reduce anger, don't vent.

skeptrune 2y ago

I've always enjoyed the idea of "pragmatic truth". I'm probably misquoting a bit, but generally take it to mean "truth is what's most useful to your long term goals."

Barrin92 2y ago
I'm sceptical of that definition of truth funnily enough for the reason that James (and you) endorse it: "Pragmatism had another benefit. It allowed for God.[...]If religion increased happiness, encouraged ethical behavior, and offered eternal life, why not gamble?" To me that's an almost canonical example of what's wrong with this notion of truth. I can accept that people have faith in God, even for unexplainable reasons on intuition, or don't, but the truth about God can't depend on whether that belief has value to me. If that's the case, God might very well cease to exist based on my mood. And that is so solipsistic it's arguably the exact opposite of a truthful worldview. If there's one thing in the world that can't be contingent on my expectation, it's by definition God. And that's arguably what's wrong with pragmatic truth on all issues, it's just less obvious.

geye1234 2y ago

I mean, there are some insights and useful advice here, but did he really think the following?: > "Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events." Aside from the obvious self-contradiction here, counterexamples are infinite. > If, for an individual, faith leads to peace and security, banishes loneliness, increases endurance, and improves behavior, it can be said to be true for that individual. It can be said to be useful for that person, but not true. Perhaps I'm missing something? -- I'm aware I'm only reading a summary. > Our emotions, our temperaments, and our current states of mind do affect our ideas. They can, if you let them. (At least up to a point: hopefully they won't lead you to think that 2+2=5.) It doesn't follow that our ideas are determined by these factors. Nor does it remove the distinction between a good and a bad idea (a good idea being one which agrees with reality, ie one that is true). > In a world of chance and incomplete information, James insisted that truth was elusive but action mandatory. Complete truth is elusive, and action is indeed mandatory, but a degree of truth is attainable, and an action is only good insofar as it's informed thereby. Traditional philosophy says you need to find the truth and then modify your desires in accordance therewith. Here he seems to be saying the opposite. Again, I'm aware I'm just reading a TLDR, and I don't deny that there is useful practical advice here.

o_nate 2y ago
I don't think James would deny that there are many cases where our simple black and white view of truth as something existing in the world independently of what we think of it is perfectly adequate, however, pragmatism is intended to deal with the more difficult cases, those cases in which philosophers find themselves at loggerheads about the nature of truth. When the question seems impossible to resolve, James's advice is to try and think in terms of what the practical consequences of a belief would be.
- geye1234 2y ago
  Thanks. I don't think this resolves the problem though, since whether or not the practical consequences of a belief are considered desirable will depend on one's philosophy, ie what one considers to be true. ISTM that perception of reality -- what one considers to be true -- will always determine belief about goodness/desirability. James, if I understand correctly, seems to get it in reverse: let your desire determine 'your' truth, ie your perception of reality.

ngcc_hk 2y ago

There are two major kind of truth at last. - You drop an apple. 1+1 =2; e^ix -1=0 … - You drive left or right side. You speak English, chinese … Both are reality but of different kind. Yes can go to space or do modular maths. You can drive on the left when everyone drive on the right. Or one day someone decide better switch as this colonial. But these two or more have different nature. ** You are moral right to do so is beyond truth, fact, … dictate. It is likely subjective and anti human nature. It does not based on external rule or what others impose on us. You have to decide. But then you cannot just let yourselves go, … you do not need to be Catholic or Christian to know human can do 7 sins. Just “let it goes” is where dark queen bring cold to the world. Human is only partially normal. ** Buddhism … last 3 years struggle with Tibetan kind and still not sure my Tracher insist the world does not exist. Always think the world exist, but not as you think and one should not be attached to it. ** Always in mix state you are not pure whatever religion or philosophy you subscribe to - either incomplete or inconsistent, always act with and in uncertainty withlong term consequences unknown, values and keep on changing perspective both yourselves, your group and humanity as a whole … that is human condition … and we all die.