4 ms·

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 e

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.
  - o_nate 2y ago
    I'm not sure it requires philosophical agreement in all particulars in order to agree on practical consequences, e.g. an empiricist and a rationalist may disagree on epistemology but agree on the consequences of going outside on a rainy day without an umbrella.
    - geye1234 2y ago
      Agree with the example, but philosophical disagreement will undoubtedly come on some matters, like almost anything that's debated in politics today. Example: on private vs government healthcare. What is the good that we are seeking? What is the value of the various tradeoffs that we inevitably have to make in choosing one system over another? These are philosophical questions. Only then can we answer the practical question of how we attain that good. Or for private life, should I devote myself to getting as much money as I can, or sleeping with as many people as possible, or are there other good things I should pursue? These are philosophical; the answer will depend on our view of reality and of ourselves. Again, only then can you get to the practical question of how we attain said good. In all these cases, and in the umbrella one, whether the consequences of belief X are good or bad will depend on one's view of said consequences. In the umbrella example, everyone happens to agree on the desirability of getting wet, but it doesn't help us in cases where we don't agree.
      - o_nate 2y ago
        I agree that pragmatism probably isn't much help in resolving these kinds of ethical and political questions. It might be helpful in terms of focusing the discussion when arguments get excessively metaphysical or abstract, but if people disagree on the practical ends that should be sought or the best means of attaining them, then I don't think pragmatism can settle that.

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.
- o_nate 2y ago
  I'm not sure it requires philosophical agreement in all particulars in order to agree on practical consequences, e.g. an empiricist and a rationalist may disagree on epistemology but agree on the consequences of going outside on a rainy day without an umbrella.
  - geye1234 2y ago
    Agree with the example, but philosophical disagreement will undoubtedly come on some matters, like almost anything that's debated in politics today. Example: on private vs government healthcare. What is the good that we are seeking? What is the value of the various tradeoffs that we inevitably have to make in choosing one system over another? These are philosophical questions. Only then can we answer the practical question of how we attain that good. Or for private life, should I devote myself to getting as much money as I can, or sleeping with as many people as possible, or are there other good things I should pursue? These are philosophical; the answer will depend on our view of reality and of ourselves. Again, only then can you get to the practical question of how we attain said good. In all these cases, and in the umbrella one, whether the consequences of belief X are good or bad will depend on one's view of said consequences. In the umbrella example, everyone happens to agree on the desirability of getting wet, but it doesn't help us in cases where we don't agree.
    - o_nate 2y ago
      I agree that pragmatism probably isn't much help in resolving these kinds of ethical and political questions. It might be helpful in terms of focusing the discussion when arguments get excessively metaphysical or abstract, but if people disagree on the practical ends that should be sought or the best means of attaining them, then I don't think pragmatism can settle that.