Pragmatism A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking

by William James, Bryan Vescio (Introduction)

The word pragmatism is used everywhere today, from business to sports to politics. Although the word hadn't yet entered everyday language when William James published "Pragmatism" in 1907, the philosopher believed its doctrine had virtually become common sense in twentieth-century America. For James, pragmatism was a specific philosophical alternative to essentialism and foundationalism and argued that ideas are meaningful only insofar as they have practical consequences in concrete human experience; however today pragmatism has come to denote merely a general willingness to compromise principles, even to the point of selfishness or irresponsibility. Written in an engaging and accessible style, "Pragmatism" is a valuable corrective to modern uses of the word, since the voice that speaks in its pages embodies precisely the opposite values from the pejorative semes the word has acquired.

Genres: Philosophy, Psychology, Nonfiction, Classics, Science, Essays, American

110 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1907

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

William James (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910) was an American philosopher and psychologist who was also trained as a physician. The first educator to offer a psychology course in the United States, James was one of the leading thinkers of the late nineteenth century and is believed by many to be one of the most influential philosophers the United States has ever produced, while others have labelled him the "Father of American psychology". Along with Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey, he is considered to be one of the greatest figures associated with the philosophical school known as pragmatism, and is also cited as one of the founders of the functional psychology. He also developed the philosophical perspective known as radical empiricism. James' work has influenced intellectuals such as Émile Durkheim, W. E. B. Du Bois, Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty.

Born into a wealthy family, James was the son of the Swedenborgian theologian Henry James Sr and the brother of both the prominent novelist Henry James, and the diarist Alice James. James wrote widely on many topics, including epistemology, education, metaphysics, psychology, religion, and mysticism. Among his most influential books are Principles of Psychology, which was a groundbreaking text in the field of psychology, Essays in Radical Empiricism, an important text in philosophy, and The Varieties of Religious Experience, which investigated different forms of religious experience.
William James was born at the Astor House in New York City. He was the son of Henry James Sr., a noted and independently wealthy Swedenborgian theologian well acquainted with the literary and intellectual elites of his day. The intellectual brilliance of the James family milieu and the remarkable epistolary talents of several of its members have made them a subject of continuing interest to historians, biographers, and critics.

James interacted with a wide array of writers and scholars throughout his life, including his godfather Ralph Waldo Emerson, his godson William James Sidis, as well as Charles Sanders Peirce, Bertrand Russell, Josiah Royce, Ernst Mach, John Dewey, Macedonio Fernández, Walter Lippmann, Mark Twain, Horatio Alger, Jr., Henri Bergson and Sigmund Freud.

William James received an eclectic trans-Atlantic education, developing fluency in both German and French. Education in the James household encouraged cosmopolitanism. The family made two trips to Europe while William James was still a child, setting a pattern that resulted in thirteen more European journeys during his life. His early artistic bent led to an apprenticeship in the studio of William Morris Hunt in Newport, Rhode Island, but he switched in 1861 to scientific studies at the Lawrence Scientific School of Harvard University.

In his early adulthood, James suffered from a variety of physical ailments, including those of the eyes, back, stomach, and skin. He was also tone deaf. He was subject to a variety of psychological symptoms which were diagnosed at the time as neurasthenia, and which included periods of depression during which he contemplated suicide for months on end. Two younger brothers, Garth Wilkinson (Wilky) and Robertson (Bob), fought in the Civil War. The other three siblings (William, Henry, and Alice James) all suffered from periods of invalidism.

He took up medical studies at Harvard Medical School in 1864. He took a break in the spring of 1865 to join naturalist Louis Agassiz on a scientific expedition up the Amazon River, but aborted his trip after eight months, as he suffered bouts of severe seasickness and mild smallpox. His studies were interrupted once again due to illness in April 1867. He traveled to Germany in search of a cure and remained there until November 1868; at that time he was 26 years old. During this period, he

Reviews

[Buck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Canadians of a certain age may recall a brilliant series of commercials put out by Carlsberg years ago. Aimed at thirty-something men, they cleverly extolled the joys of adulthood. A typical spot showed a horny couple sharing a pre-coital embrace in a motel room. The voiceover narrator explains: “A friend of mine once tried to tell me that the best sex I’d ever have would be with my wife.” Pause. “He was right.” And then the slogan: “Welcome to your Carlsberg years.” (Youtube is pretending not to know what commercial I’m talking about, and keeps recommending instead this cruelly hilarious clip of a shitfaced Orson Welles – at once the saddest and funniest thing ever.)

Well, I’ve decided that pragmatism is a philosophy for people in their Carlsberg years. It has a sort of adult-contemporary vibe to it. By design, it’s very middle of the road. This sounds like a dig, but it’s really not. The fact is, I kinda like Wilco – and I kinda like William James. Warmed-over Nietzscheanism, a rakish dash of critical theory, a bit of Bataille when you’re feeling frisky: that’s all very well for your twenties, but sooner or later you settle down, buy a Suzuki Swift and start wondering how you’re going to get rid of that tribal tattoo on your arm. Nothing tragic about that.

I won’t bore you with a detailed summary of pragmatism—that’s what Wikipedia’s for—but I’d just suggest that, if you’re reading this, you’re most likely, in some corner of your harried soul, a pragmatist already. Pragmatism—of the unofficial, half-assed variety—has become the default mode for most (secular) Westerners. This isn’t James’ doing, exactly. He just gave a local habitation and a name to something that was floating around in the zeitgeist.

If you’re interested in pragmatism itself, you should probably just go straight to Richard Rorty for the modern-dress version. The only reason to read James is for the beauty of his prose—and for the particular tang of his humour and sanity. Even when he’s discussing the most dry-as-dust concepts, he can’t help being earthy and vivid:

Matter is indeed infinitely and incredibly refined. To any one who has ever looked on the face of a dead child or parent the mere fact that matter could have taken for a time that precious from, ought to make matter sacred ever after...That beloved incarnation was among matter’s possibilities.

When you remember that James himself lost a child, you start to realize just how much passion and seriousness went into the man’s writing. Already in the 19th century, there was a joke going around that William James was a novelist disguised as a psychologist, while his brother Henry was a psychologist trying to write novels. At this point in my life, William suddenly seems a lot more interesting and relevant than Henry, but that’s probably just another sign that I’ve entered my Carlsberg years.

[Ahmed Ibrahim · Rating 4 out of 5]

في تقديم زكي نجيب محمود لكتاب جون ديوي "المنطق: نظرية البحث" يلخص المنطق البرجماتي بشكل جميل، فالمنطق التقليدي يدور حول صدق أو كذب الجملة، أما المنطق البراجماتي يبحث عن الغرض الذي تؤديه الجملة، هل الجملة تؤدي إلى غرض مفيد وعملي أم لا؟ هذه هي البراجماتية.

البراجماتية من أكثر المذاهب الفلسفية التي يُساء فهمها، وكثيرا ما تُخلط بالنفعية، بيد أن البراجماتية كمذهب فلسفي يحاول إزالة اللبث والخلاف عن الكثير من الأمور غير المجدية من الخلاف عليها، كما يحاول أن يصل بالإنسان للراحة العملية.

يبدأ الكتاب بوقوف الكاتب على المشاكل الفلسفية للعصر الفلسفي الحديث والاختلافات بين العقليين (اللينين العريكة) والتجربيين (الصعبين المراس).. يتناول الكاتب كلا الفلسفتين ليقف على الإشكالية، حيث تقف البراجماتية في منطقة الوسط بين الفلسفتين، فكل فلسفة تأخذ عليها البراجماتية عدة مآخذ وتتقف معهما في بعض الأمور. لذلك يمكن أن نقول أن البراجماتية مذهب توفيقي.
في المحاضرات التالية يقف في كل واحدة على جانب محدد من الرؤية البراجماتية، يبدأ أولا مع تحديد معنى البراجماتية ثم يتناول بعض المشاكل ويتعامل معها من منطلق فلسفته، فيتناول الواحد والمتعدد ومفهوم البداهة، ثم أهم مباحث الكتاب وهو مفهوم البراجماتية للحقيقة، وقد عرضهم مفهومهم للحقيقة لسوء الفهم والنقد الذي يتهمهم بالقول بأنهم يقولون بعدم وجود حقيقة، لكن الكاتب يتناول تقد الآخرين ويفنده ويوضح نظرتهم للحقيقة "فإن الحقيقي باختصار جدا ليس سوى المطلوب النافع في سبيل تفكيرنا، تماما مثلما أن الصحيح ليس سوى المطلوب النافع الموافق في سبيل سلوكنا" وهذا اختصار للمفهوم العام الذي سيتناوله الكاتب أكثر في هذا الفصل وفي فصل آخر بعدها. ثم يتخدث الكاتب عن مفهوم الإنسية في ضوء البراجماتية، فالحق في نظر العقليين مختلف عنه في نظرة البراجماتيين، وهذا موضوع هذا الفصل. كما يخصص آخر فصل في الكتاب أيضًا لتناول الإنسية والحقيقة والعلاقة الرديكالية بينهما.
ومن أهم ما يميز وليم جيمس عن شيلر وديوي أعلام البراجماتية هو أهتمامه بتناول الدين على المحك البراجماتي، فالدين بشكل عام مفيد لتصورات البعض ومفيد، لذلك أهتم جيمس بالحديث عن الدين وفائدته في إطار فلسفته. وفي آخر مبحث في الكتاب ينتقل إلى وظيفة الإدراك، وفيها لا يبحث عن كيف يحدث الإدراك، ولكن عن ماهية الإدراك، وهذا الفصل يتنقل بين علم النفس والفلسفة.

بهذا الكتاب وضع وليم جيمس أسس الفكر البرجماتي في كتاب، يختلف جيمس أحيانا مع أعلام البراجماتية الآخرين: شيلر وديوي ولكن فلسفتهم تدور حول محور أو منطق واحد.

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this as I have read it before for a grad course I am teaching on Language, Literacy and Democracy. And Pragmatism. This book is a series of lectures James gave more than a hundred years ago to help explain pragmatism as a method, not as just yet another philosophical position. It's a method of approaching truth as against abstract theory. Seeing truth not as Truth and the self as something clear and solid we need to discover but multiple, social, shifting, flexible, continually constructed in engagement with experience. Which makes it sound like a lot of contemporary postmodern philosophy. Right, the ideas have been around for centuries, nothing new, James says, and these skeptical "show me" ideas continued through the work of contemporary pragmatist practitioners such as Richard Rorty. Anti-"isms," which can be single theoretical explanations of the world, like Marxism, Feminism, anti-racism. Single bullet explanations that are fixed and a-contextual. Grand Theories that claim to explain How the World Works. Bull hockey to that, James says.

The central idea here is that the meaning (or truth) of any idea — philosophical, political, social, or otherwise — has validity only in terms of its experiential and practical consequences. In other words, you think this, you believe this. . . so what? What difference does it make in the world? What good is to believe that? James and pragmatism HATE abstractions and the emptiest most ethereal reaches of philosophizing. They're anti-dogma. As one raised to believe in a Calvinist brand of religion, I have some history that leads me to say amen to James and draw closer to anarchy (against a fixed system of rules) than fascism, let's just say.

James is also responding to Darwin, who was of course all the rage in the late nineteenth century. Darwin says, among other things, that we are mostly determined by our biology, by genetics. He shows us this true through scientific experiment. And he has a point. But James says nope, anything that claims you are completely determined by any one thing in particular ways is just plain limited. You are changing and always will be. Not fixed by experience but open because of it.

James and the pragmatists say that you in part make yourself and your world. A hopeful view, perhaps a little naive, you say, you cynic, but as a teacher, I have to believe in possibilities for learning and life, and James helps me not be so. . . hopeless about the world and its future. He helps, at least. And as someone in academia, I hitting it helps to be less certain than too damned cocksure of oneself.

James, the brother of novelist Henry, was one of the great thinkers of his time. He wrote Principles of Psychology to help found that field, he wrote Varieties of Religious Experience to examine people's experience with belief/religion/psychic phenomena, in various cultures. He's a little stuffy and not all of what he cared about then matters to me, but I still like his contribution to thinking about thinking.

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

James's Pragmatism

In 1906 and 1907, William James delivered a series of eight lectures at the Lowell Institute, Boston, and at Columbia University, New York City which he published as "Pragmatism: A New Way for Some Old Ways of Thinking". This short book, which James further described as "popular" lectures on philosophy constituted James's fullest statement of his thought up to that time. It remains a provocative, valuable, and important work, a classic of American thought.

I want to mention some important considerations in James's overall approach in this book. First, I was struck, in reading "Pragmatism", by the importance James attaches to the philosophical quest. He begins his opening lecture, "The Present Dilemma in Philosophy" with the observation that an individual's philosophy is the most important thing about that person because it gives his or her sense of "what life honestly and deeply means." James makes high and traditional claims for the importance of philosophical investigation -- claims which not been followed by a number of subsequent professional philosophers.

Second, James wrote his book for a lay audience of educated individuals whom he called "amateur philosophers". People in this class, for James, were not technically trained academic philosophers but rather were those who had a sense of both the claims of religion and spirituality and the claims of empirical science. These amateurs, James continued, wanted, in our modern terminology to "have it all"; and they were inclined to overlook conflicts or inconsistencies between types of beliefs that they wished simultaneously to hold. Many of James philosophical successors did not follow James in writing for amateurs. They wrote instead for other philosophers.

Third, James saw his role as a philosopher in mediating between the claims of Darwinian and physical science and religion. In a memorable phrase, he divided philosophers and philosophical tendencies into two broad types: "tender-minded" and "tough minded". The tender-minded thinkers of his day, the focus of much criticism in "Pragmatism" were the absolute idealists, American and British successors to Hegel. The tough-minded thinkers were empiricists, wedded to factual investigation and to materialism. Tough minded thinkers wanted nothing to do with metaphysical or religious abstractions. James conceived of pragmatism as a way to accept what was valuable in both tender-minded and tough-minded thinkers.

Thus, in the body of his lectures, James developed pragmatism as a method and a theory of truth. Pragmatism is an instrumental philosophy which holds, James states at one point, that "ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience." (Note the reference to "ideas" in this definition which may tie James unduly to some previous methods of thinking that he would otherwise reject.) Philosophy is not a subject for intellectualist abstractions but rather a tool to help people understand themselves and their needs in specific situations, consistently with their needs in other situations. Pragmatism, for James, is a forward-looking philosophy which tests ideas by their consequences, both in matters of science and in matters of religious belief. Thus, for James pragmatism is a philosophy which mediates between science and religion. Unlike some of his fellow pragmatists, the religious life was important to James.

James applies his basic approach to pragmatism to address traditional philosophical questions, including the nature of substance, personal identity and free-will. His discussions are still worth reading. For me, the strongest section of the book was the Lecture IV in which James contrasts philosophical monism and pluralism. This chapter helped me to both to understand and to question the fascination that claims to the unity of the world or of experience have exerted and continue to exert on many thinkers. This chapter is an excellent exposition of philosophical pluralism -- the view that there are many things and that they may only be imperfectly and incompletely connected. The lectures on "Pragmatism and Common Sense" and on "Pragmatism and Humanism" are contemporary and important in that they suggest the absence of fixed categories and the legitimacy of alternative means of describing experience for different purposes.

James writes so beautifully that he sometimes lacks the technical precision that might make his ideas clearer. He frequently uses loose metaphors that, while intruiging, serve to obfuscate rather than clarify his position. This is particularly the case in lecture VI, "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth" in which James expounds upon his claim that the truth of an idea is the use we can make of it. As James himself points out, his position was subject to a great deal of criticism, much of which may be misdirected. But James does not entirely help himself in expounding his position on this difficult question.

In the final chapter of his work, James explains his philosophical stance as a meliorist -- one who looks towards the future and tries to work to make his life and the world a better place. He finds that, for him, some form of religious theism is essential for this endeavor. While rejecting transcendental idealism and the absolute, James accepts the existence of a God, if not the all-powerful, all-knowing, unitary God of traditional Jewish-Christian theology. The method of knowing an idea by its use and consequence finds a place, for James, in both matters of the spirit and matters of science. Thus, James claims that pragmatic thought is able to honor both the claims of spirit and the claims of science. James modified his pragmatism in subsequent works and ultimately may have adopted a position closer to the idealism he criticizes in "Pragmatism".

With many modifications and qualifications, much of James's strategy for mediating between science and religion remains important and has been developed by subsequent thinkers. He articulated an important mission for philosophy and made it a subject and a quest which could continue to inspire and to help people with their lives. James is a challenging thinker that deserves to be read. He still has a great deal to teach.

Robin Friedman

[أحمد سعيد البراجه · Rating 3 out of 5]

يقول "أحمد خالد توفيق" : الفلسفة هى فن التحدث عن التفاحة بدلاً من أكلها.
ولكن البراجماتية تختلف ،، فالبراجماتية تتجاوز التحدث عن التفاحة إلى الحديث عما بعد أكلها ..

البراجماتية كفلسفة تغض الطرف عن الحديث عن الماضي ،، وترفض الإستغراق في تأمل الماضي ،، وتهتم بنتائج وتأثير الماضي والحاضر على المستقبل ..

يقول ( د.زكي نجيب محمود ) عن البراجماتية في مقدمة الكتاب : أعطني من القول ما يهديني سواء السبيل في حياة عامة أو في صناعة وزراعة وتجارة، أسلم لك من فوري أن قول حق، بغض النظر عما كان وما هو كائن بالفعل ..


الكتاب يضم محاضرات ألقاها "وليام جيمس" فيلسوف البراجماتية ،، والتي ألقاها في أواخر العام 1906 وبدايات 1907 بأحد جامعات نيويورك ،،
وقد هذا السبب في صعوبة وثقل المحاضرات ،، فهي محاضرات أكاديمية ،، استغرق مني الكتاب وقتاً طويلاً لأنني أعدت قراءة بعض أجزاء الكتاب أكثر من مرة ،،
ومع هذا لا أستطيع أن أجزم أنني أنهيت الكتاب ،، فهناك صفحات لم أستوعب ما بها نظراً لأنها تتكلم عن شخصيات ونظريات فلسفية لم أستوعبها مع أول قراءاتي في الفلسفة ،،
ولكن الكتاب أضاف بالفعل لمعلوماتي ،، وأعتقد أنه أثر في تفكيري بشكل أو آخر ،،


تفاجأت وأنا أقرأ مقدمة المؤلف أنه لا يستسيغ لفظة " البراجماتية " ولكن الوقت قد فات لتغييرها ،، وفي آخر الكتاب يقترح تسمية نستبدلها باسم " الإنسية " ،،


المحاضرات الثمان تتحدث عن :
- المعضلة الراهنة في الفلسفة.
- معنى البراجماتية.
- بعض المشكلات الميتافيزيقية على المحك البراجماتي.
- الواحد والمتعدد.
- البراجماتية والبداهة.
- مفهوم البراجماتية للحقيقة.
- البراجماتية والإنسية.
- البراجماتية والدين.

هكذا إذاً يعرفنا "وليام جيمس" عن ظروف نشأة البراجماتية ولماذا نحن بحاجة إلى فلسفة جديدة ،، ليشرح بعد ذلك حلول البراجماتية لقضايا الفلسفة الحديثة ..

وفي آخر الكتاب يضيف المؤلف فصولاً نشرت من قبل ،، يكمل بها شرح مفهوم البراجماتية تحت عنوانين : وظيفة الإدراك ، النمور في الهند ، الإنسية والحقيقة.


الكتاب لا يلخص ،، ولا أستطيع الكتابة عنه ،،
ولكني أستطيع الإجابة عن أسئلتكم عن البراجماتية على حسب ما فهمته من الكتاب ،،

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love reading a book and saying at the end, 'this is fundamentally what I believe; this is generally how I think; this has always been a piece of MY philosophy.'

[Xander · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pragmatism (1907) is William James' attempt to square the circle. It is his answer to the endless philosophical debate between rationalism and empricism. The rationalist claims there is an Absolute Truth, waiting for us to grasp it, while the empiricist claims there is a multitude of truths: all our experiences are truth.

Both positions are an answer to the question: what is truth? Now, this debate has been raging ever since the ancient Greeks, and it has seen the invention of innovative and original philosophical systems (Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, among others). But it is safe to say the debate hasn't really been settled - and I'd even claim it hasn't progressed, at all.

William James tries to concoct a totally new philosophical stance regarding the question 'what is truth?', by manoeuvring between rationalism and empiricism. But in doing so, I'm afraid that James has only brought us further from an answer.

James' pragmatism centres around the question: what difference does it make in practice if I grant this idea or fact to be true (or not)? So truth, according to James, is nothing but the practical utility of an idea or fact to the person asking the question. A fact that is useful in practice is true; a fact that isn't useful in practice is false.

(Since James takes utility (of an idea or fact) as the criterion with which to distinguish truth from falsehood, James' stance could - or should - rather be called 'epistemological utilitarianism'. This would make more sense, since pragmatism easily leads to confusion.)

So what to think of James' pragmatism? The problem for James (and pragmatism in general) is that it isn't really an answer to the original debate, at all. Both empiricists and rationalists are looking for a criterion to distinguish truth from fiction, but both search in different areas: the rationalist will look for metaphysical principles, while the empricist will look for sense experience. Both will not be satisfied with such a childish answer (as James gives them): "you are both right, as long as the statement is useful to you, it is true." In James' view they are both right in their own ways - because their philosopoical stance is useful to them, in practice - and there really is no debate.

I am perhaps a bit unfair regarding James' pragmatism, therefore let me use some citations, so you can judge for yourself:

"True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify, false ideas are those that we cannot. That is the practical difference it makes to us to have true ideas; that, therefore, is the meaning of truth, for it is all that truth is known-as." (p. 77)

And truth is, according to James, in a sense, agreement. But agreement to what?

"Agreement thus turns out to be essentially an affair of leading - leading that is useful because it is into quarters that contain objects that are important. True ideas lead us into useful verbal and conceptual quarters, as well as directly up to useful sensible termini. They lead to consistency, stability, and flowing human intercourse.They lead away from excentricity and isolation, from foiled and barren thinking." (p 83)

So to interpret this: truth is using ideas that are conducive to practical daily intercourse between human beings. The higher the ideas used, contribute to this goal, the more true they are. Therefore, utility in human intercourse, is James' "large loose way" (p. 83) of defining agreement (i.e. truth).

I cannot really make it more clear than the above statements and interpretations. Pragmatism (at least James' version) judges truth of ideas or facts by the practical utility of the ideas or facts involved, related to our daily lives. James' pragmatism, it is soon realized, would quickly lead to objections. To take just two examples.

(1) What about those ideas that we can use to destroy ourselves with?

The atom bomb is based on scientific theory; we can destroy humanity with it; hence it doesn't promote 'human intercourse'. Indeed, the untruth of the atomic theory would be (at least in general, from the perspective of mankind as a whole) more conducive to human intercourse, so that would, almost by definition, make the atomic theory false.

But the same atomic theory that lets us build a-bombs, lets us build nuclear reactors, which power our societies and give us energy, warmth, etc. This is utility in the flesh. So the theory is true after all?

In chapter 5, James seems to get the gist of the above, when he says the following:

"Its [our practical control of nature] rate of increase accelerates so that no one can trace the limit; one may even fear that the being of man may be crushed by his own powers, that his fixed nature as an organism may not prove adequate to stand the strain of the ever increasingly tremendous functions, almost divine creative functions, which his intellect will more and more enable him to wield. He may drown in his wealth like a child in a bath-tub, who has turned on the water and cannot turn it off." (p. 72)

Although James seems to see the problem, he doesn't realize this is a serious objection to his stance on 'utility as a criterion for truth.'

(2) What about the time when there were no human beings around for ideas to have practical utility in human intercourse?

Since their existence (as an idea or fact) has no effect on our practical lives, is it true or untrue that dinosaurs existed? etc. etc.

(Of course one could argue that our knowledge of the history of our planet is conducive to our daily lives, since it gives us meaning to our lives. Yet there are millions of human beings to claim that 'the existence of dinsoaurs as a fact' stands in the way to their practical lives as devout Christians. And it doesn't really answer the question in what sort of way our life would be different if we had no knowledge whatsoever of dinosaurs.)

So what about the book? The book is short (one can read this in an afternoon), fairly readable, and accessible. Yet it uses arcane and outdated language, and is - without prior knowledge - at times hard to grasp for the layman. James has a certain attraction in his style of presentation, yet at times one wonders if he couldn't just cut the academic prose and plainly state what he means (especially since he is adressing a popular audience). Its content isn't all that interesting - it certainly doesn't need 8 chapters to bring the main message across. In sum, I cannot really recommend this book.

As a last remark, I'd like to point to James' curious stance on humanism and religion. Since pragmatism judges the truth of statements by their utilitarian practical value, it follows that human beings (partly) create truth. This leads James to conclude (in chapter 7) that humanism and pragmatism go hand in hand. In a sense, pragmatism IS humanism. The same, in general, goes for religion.

In chapter 8, James states that religion is fully compatible with pragmatism. I'm not so sure if the average religious believer will agree, though. James' pragmatism goes against dogmatism (i.e. rationalism; the claim that there is absolute Truth) and allows for a plurality of visions regarding truth. Monotheistic religions do make absolute truth claims, though, so I am not sure what James means when he claims "pragmatism can be called religious" (p. 116) while in the same sentence adding the conditional: "if you allow that religion can be pluralistic" (p. 116).

So it seems that James' pragmatism tries to answer an important question but fails in its attempt and leaves us only with even more (new) questions and contradictions.

[Alina · Rating 4 out of 5]

James is a wonderful writer, and this text would be readily approachable by even readers who have no background in philosophy. A consequence of this, however, is that James doesn't lay out his views systematically, and doesn't provide rigorous argument for them; his arguments primarily consist in applying his views to extended examples (e.g., he presents how religious experience would be explained according to his view; how the debate between materialism and religion would be seen under his lights; etc). This gives a false sense of validity to his views; it seems that James' position has a lot of explanatory power, but it's not difficult to make many positions capable of rationalizing and explaining many cases.

James's overall view is that the meaning of a statement or theory is reducible to the practical consequences that statement or theory has. For example, James thinks that creationist and materialist cosmological explanations, ultimately, have the same meaning because they both predict the exact same consequences that we encounter in practical experience (i.e., the existence of the world around us, today). This view entails that the truth of a statement or theory is born out in whether its practical consequences are favorable, preferable, or appropriate in our experience. There is no absolute truth that stands independently of our practical experience and desires; truth is subsequent to and determined by how we experience things and what we desire. This allows James to claim that truth is just one value of the good among others, like beauty or yumminess or pleasure.

I think there's a large grain of truth to this view, but also James leaves it critically ambiguous and applies it in ways that are misleading. I've been thinking, along with G. E. Anscombe, about how any action can be captured by a series of means-end reasoning (e.g., the man moves his arms up and down in order to pump (poisoned) water, he pumps water in order to get it into the house, he gets water into the house in order to poison its (Nazi) residents, he poisons its residents in order to help with the anti-Nazi cause). Two identical, overt behaviors could amount to distinct actions, depending on the aims or reasons for which the agent is performing it. With this in mind, we can think about how James's view doesn't have to be a straightforward matter of verificationalism, or that the truth of a theory is identical to whether our experience can verify it. Instead, the truth of a theory is born out in whether we are capable of taking diverse actions whose aims/reasons are consistent with, affirm, or include parts of that theory. For example, if a religious person can get by in life with their actions including aims/reasons that do not violate and even support their religious cosmology, then this theory will be truthful to them.

The main issue with James's view, I think, is that he fails to make a critical ontological distinction between the bare existential of a physical thing and the meaning of a thing (regardless of whether it's physical). It seems that our actions cannot plausibly include means (overt behaviors) that interact with the existence of physical things that don't actually exist. So there is a hard, material constraint upon actions, which amounts to a hard constraint upon a subset of possible truths. There cannot be debate over the ground beneath our feet's existing, for example, because we cannot plausibly get actions off the ground that presuppose that this ground doesn't exist.

In contrast, we can plausibly get a diverse array of meanings off the ground, by presupposing them in our actions. When I take a next step on the ground, for example, I can do this with the aim to get my steps in for the day, to arrive at the next slice of the time-worm that constitutes my spatio-temporal being, to release anxiety, to approach my beloved, etc. Many of the states of affairs or items included in these aims are not physical in character (e.g., time-worms, anxiety). This non-physical character allows these items to become systematically affirmed by an agent's diverse actions, so that their existence does get born out in experience; they have genuine practical consequences, insofar as the agent can act by virtue of them. Unlike the existence of a physical thing, there are no hard constraints on the existence of these non-physical items. Any abstract reason can guide an agent's diverse actions, as long as the agent is committed to it, and it is consistent with the agent's other reasons.

With this distinction in place, we can see that James's example that materialistic and religious cosmologies have the same truth value is false. There are many fine-grained differences in states of affairs each would entail. James would be right only if each predicted solely the bare existence of physical things around us. But a religious person might pray to god, while an atheist would find this a make-believe or incoherent action, for example; these views predict the existence of far more, non-physical entities, which figure into the meaning or truth-value of these views.

I'm left wondering about the relationship between these non-physical entities and physical things. If the former were reducible to the latter, then there should be hard constraints derivable for the former; then, even if a non-physical entity may be systematically affirmed by a person's actions, this person would still count as delusional. I don't think any straightforward reduction would be possible, because the two are just so ontologically different. There are many stories, mythologies, elements of culture that serve as the basis of non-physical entities, and these have evolved over human evolution, into extreme complexity. If reduction is impossible, how else are we to think about the relationship between the two? I wonder if there are causal paths that could be identified; or if there are relationships that are valuable to examine which aren't causal at all in character.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

William James’ erudite, though painfully long, volumes on The Principles of Psychology won me over when I read them. His intelligence and expansive view of the world, and our experiencing of it, was a wonderful blend of psychology and philosophy. A mixture that he serves up as “pragmatism” in Pragmatism: a New Name of Some Old Ways of Thinking.

The only thing James knows is that no one knows the answers to the philosophical and religious questions we love to bicker about. Therefore, in the absence of real answers, how do you construct an ethic by which we satisfy our impulse to assign value while at the same time recognize scientific truths that dictate our reality? He has no desire to deprive the faithful of their comforts, but:

[i]n this real world of sweat and dirt, it seems to me that when a view of things is “noble”, that ought to count as a presumption against its truth, and as a philosophic disqualification. The prince of darkness may be a gentleman, as we are told he is, but whatever the God of earth and heaven is, he can surely be no gentleman. His menial services are needed in the dust of our human trials, even more than his dignity is needed in the empyrean. Pg. 26>

For James, our philosophic thinking must allow room to grow and learn. We are not at the apex of human understanding of the universe, our place in it, or even ourselves. Any belief that restricts the ability to move beyond our current understanding is unproductive. But that just means we need to redefine what we believe. James believes there is more than belief. As he states, “I firmly disbelieve, myself, that our human experience is the highest form of experience extant in the universe.” Pg. 107.

Growth is the underlying value in James’ pragmatism. Whereas some call for unconditional love, or truth, or observance of dictated commands, as the core of their belief, James wants to learn more. Pragmatism embraces imagination and what causes us to strive past the boundaries of where we are. Those wanting certainty and distinct boundaries obviously reject such fluid thinking. James knew this, and even in these lectures, desperately wished that his detractors would not be so quick to dismiss these thoughts as mere principles of convenience or what is most expedient. If you believe the world is not tailor-made to be understood for our luxury, then, whether it be pragmatism or a belief in the unknowability of God’s purpose, there seems little choice but to acknowledge our ignorance and try to find a way forward. The alternative is simply standing still.

[Zakaria Bziker · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had to read this book to understand the age we're living in. I am not a fan of pragmatism. I think it reduces the philosophical inquiry to selfish pursuits and ties science to short term goals. Pragmatism, to my understanding, has no need for philosophy.
“Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.”
― Bertrand Russell

[Moomen Sallam · Rating 5 out of 5]

شرح سهل من احد الأقطاب الثلاثة للفلسفة البراجماتية، وتناول بعض القضايا الفلسفية في ضؤ البراجماتية، ولعل أهم ما في الكتاب تناولة للدين، فيما يمكن تسميته بالايمان البراجماتي.

[Graychin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like his younger brother Henry, William James had a gift for language. Anyone in love with the possibilities of English prose will enjoy reading him. Years ago I read his Varieties of Religious Experience and return to it now and then just to hear him talk. The first two lectures in Pragmatism are especially thick with little surprises of phrasing and insight. I marked up my library copy shamelessly (but only with pencil!). That said, James’s attempt to reform philosophy along “pragmatic” lines is less compelling and more confusing than the clarity of his prose might lead us to hope for.

James wants us to reconsider the Aristotelian correspondence theory of truth, according to which an idea or assertion is true as far as it reflects the way things really are. According to this model, the truth of a statement is independent of our having tested it. So, for example, if I were to give you an envelope and tell you it contained a dollar bill, the statement would be either true or false depending on what was actually in the envelope, even if you never opened it to check my statement against reality. Most people would agree with this, of course. It’s our common-sense notion of truth in the western world.

But James suggests that rather than using the word “truth” to describe, in philosophical terms, that “timeless relation” of assertion and reality, we reserve the word only for things that have, one way or another, passed a test of verification, or proven themselves somehow beneficial. Ideas, according to Pragmatism, are tools, and if they don’t “work” for us, they’re meaningless. Reduced like that, James’s idea sounds simple enough, and possibly appealing, but James gets overexcited and there are passages in Pragmatism where he seems to want to discard the correspondence theory of truth altogether. To return to my example of the envelope with the possible dollar bill inside it, James might say, for instance, that the assertion “becomes true” when and if we open the envelope and find that it does indeed contain a dollar bill. Truth, James says when he gets carried away with himself, is something that “happens” to an idea.

To be fair to James, he doesn’t really want to do away with the Aristotelian notion of truth, and he spent some sweat and labor after the publication of Pragmatism trying to calm the apprehensions he roused in so many of his readers. But James had been impressed by his friend Charles Pierce’s elucidation of the law of errors which states that minute scientific observations inevitably vary along a plottable curve, allowing us to infer an accurate-enough position (of a star, say) but never making for absolute certainty. Unless we want to go for a ride with Bishop Berkeley, then, and deny the independent material existence of sense objects altogether, there is an unbridgeable (if infinitesimal) gap between things in themselves and our perceptions of them. While that gap may look small from an everyday distance, it can be philosophically dizzying. With his pragmatic redefinition of truth James wanted to build a bridge to cross it while keeping the vertigo down to an acceptable level.

James was also laboring under the glowering shadows of 19th century German metaphysics and a Darwinian scientific worldview that was just flexing its muscles. Whereas the rationalists wanted to describe a world in which matter is governed hierarchically by mind, science made forceful arguments for mind’s governance by matter instead. James wanted a way to honor his pro-scientific empiricist sympathies while at the same time respectably making room for God. Pragmatism’s careful adjustment of terms allows James to test his idea of God, find it psychologically beneficial (i.e. a “working” idea), and proclaim it therefore true. James might have found it easier to support his theism nowadays as Hegel and Kant recede in the distance and science with its quantum theory and dark matter allows more room for interested speculation.

In the end I think I have to agree with the late Martin Gardner's assessment (in his essay 'Truth: Why I am Not a Pragamatist') and say that Pragmatism was more an attempt to rewrite the dictionary than a philosophy in its own right, and that philosophies departing from the common uses of terms and resorting to private definitions can have little enduring value. If Pragmatism fails, in other words, it fails because it isn't pragmatic enough.

[Nouru-éddine · Rating 5 out of 5]

∷انطباع عام∷
=========
كتاب مقنع للغاية! مع كل سطر كنت أهتف وأقول: تبًا إنه مقنع! لقد اقتنعت! ما هذه السهولة؟! على الرغم من أنني بدأته مع انطباع سيء عن هذه الفلسفة لكن بعد الانتهاء صرت أفهم فعلاً ما هي البراجماتية، والتي يتم الخلط بينها وبين النفعية أو التجريبية بل هي تضم تحت مظلتها كل تلك الاتجاهات بل حتى تضم كذلك الميتافيزيقا كونها تؤدي غرضها "الذرائعي" للإنسان أي تطمئنه. فالخير في البراجماتية هو الصحيح عقليًا وبالتالي فهو النافع كنتيجة للإنسان بعد تجربته. فبدلاً من الانطلاق من قوانين نظرية مسبقة ثم إسقاطها على الواقع، يتم الانطلاق من الواقع نفسه بما يحققه لنا من نتائج مفيدة فحسب. والمفيد هو بالضرورة الخيّر والصالح. لا غرو أنها فعلاً فلسفة بسيطة لينة مرنة تصلح لكل الأمور وتقلل من الاختلافات الفظيعة الناشبة بين أصحاب النظريات العقلية الأحادية. الإقناع الفلسفي في الكتاب قوي للغاية، على الرغم من كون الكتاب هو مجرد محاضرات ألقاها وليام جيمس في آخر حياته، إلا أن حججه مقنعة وقدرته على "تجميل" البراجماتية أصاب عقلي وأقنعني. فهو أزال عن البراجماتية الوصمة السيئة التي عادة ما يطلقها أعداؤها على أنها نفعية قذرة وحوّلها إلى طريقة عملية قريبة من الحياة وتساعد الإنسان على تسهيل حياته لا تعقيدها كما يفعل العقليون. وبالتالي صالحني على "المادة" وأزال عني الانطباع السيء كونها غليظة وثقيلة وحرشة؛ بل هي منظمة ودقيقة ومتناغمة مع بعضها البعض وبعبارة واحدة: تقوم بوظيفتها على أكمل وجه.
إن البراجماتي يسأل السؤال الناجز: ؟"Would it help" – أي هل لأي فكرة أو اعتقاد أو افتراض نتيجة ما تصنع فارقًا نستطيع من خلالها الحكم على مدى صحة هذه الفكرة أو هذا الاعتقاد والافتراض؟ إن البراجماتي يرى النتائج الواقعية الملموسة، فهو لا ينطلق من المجردات إلى الملموسات، بل يحكم على مدى صحة المجردات مما بين يديه من الملموس الفعلي في حياته وواقعه. وأبرز ما تعاملت معه البراجماتية هو الدين، فبالنسبة للبراجماتي لا يهم إن كان خلف العالم مدبر أو مادة منظمة بدقة – ففي الحالتين، العالم يعمل بطريقة ممتازة وباهرة سواء بسواء، ويشعر البراجماتي بالامتنان والشكر لهذا المدبر أو المادة المنظمة سواء بسواء. وتصبح مصطلحات المادة والمطلق والمدبر والنظام مجرد كلمات تعبر عن النتيجة ذاتها. إنها فلسفة النتائج التي تريحنا من الخبط في عشواء الافتراضات البعيدة، وبالتالي نعود حقًا لحياتنا اليومية من حولنا ولا ننفصل داخل عقولنا كما يفعل العقلانيون الجافون أو نهيم في الخيال مثل الروحانيون الليّنون.
نظرية جيمس فعلاً بسيطة، وفي اللحظة التي ندرك فيها فكرته، ننصدم من مدى بساطتها وقوتها. السؤال ببساطة: أيهما جاء أولاً الفكرة أم الواقع الذي تعبر عنه هذه الفكرة؟ - يقول جيمس أن الواقع هو الفيصل هنا. ونستطيع أن نحكم على مدى صحة أية فكرة عبر "تحليلها براجماتيًا" – هل ستقودنا هذه الفكرة فعلاً إلى الواقع الذي تعبر عنه أم لا. لو نعم، فهي فكرة صحيحة عقليًا، ولو لا، فهي فكرة خاطئة عقليًا. بهذه الطريقة يتم التوفيق بين الفريقين المتناحرين: العقلانيين والروحانيين. وكذلك يتم فلترة جميع الأفكار التي تبعدنا عن الواقع وتضللنا. وفوق كل ذلك، تجعلنا نظرية جيمس نقدّر قيمة "التجربة" الإنسانية، ومعرفة آلية عمل العقل في تحويل "تيار الخبرة المتدفق" إلى شذرات من المفاهيم والأفكار المجردة يستطيع التعامل معها فيما بعد أو نقلها لرفاقه. نظرية جيمس تحررنا من عبودية الأفكار المجردة المتوارثة، وتنهي الجدل حول مدى صحتها عبر محاكمتها "براجماتية" أي ذرائعيًا – عمليًا – كونها وسيلة ترشد أو لا ترشد للواقع.
سواء اتفقنا أو اختلفنا مع البراجماتية، سنجد أنفسنا نطبّقها في حياتنا بشكل واع أو لاواعي، بشكل جزئي أو كامل، خصوصًا عند اتخاذ قرارات مصيرية في حياتنا، لأننا نعلم أنه لا يمكننا التحكم في البيئة التي نعيش فيها وفقًا لأفكارنا المجردة البعيدة عن الواقع، بقدر ما نستطيع التنبؤ بالنتائج المحتملة لهذه الافكار ومدى صحتها تعتمد على النتيجة الأكثر احتمالاً. كلنا براجماتيون بنسب متفاوتة، وهذا ما حتّمه علينا عصر الآلة التكنولوجية.
***
∷البراجماتية في سطور∷
===============
يمكننا تلخيص مبادئ جيمس المنهجية أي البراجماتية والإمبريقية الراديكالية، والمفاهيم بصفتها شذرات من الخبرة، وأننا نجد المعنى في المفاهيم المجرّبة والمدركات التي تقودنا إليها. تمكننا المفاهيم من إيجاد طريقنا عبر الخبرة التي هي مستمرة ومتدفقة باستمرار وتسود في الفوضى. نحن نكوّن المفاهيم عبر تجريدها من تيار الخبرة المتدفق، وعزلها على هيئة حصص أو أجزاء من الخبرة. تكمن "القيمة النقودية" أو "المعنى البراجماتي" لأي مفهوم في الإدراك الذي يقودنا للتوقع السليم ولتمكيننا من التحضير للأفعال. نحن نجد الحقيقة للفكرة ذات المعنى في كيفية إرشادها لنا عبر التجربة.
منهج جيمس للوصول للمعنى هو نظرية توحيدية تنطبق على جميع مناهج الفكر السليم والعلم والميتافيزيقا.
***
∷المعنى والحقيقة∷
===========
وصف وليام جيمس البراجماتية على أنها طريقة للوصول للمعنى والحقيقة يمكننا من خلالها سد الثُلمة بين التفكير العلمي المادي التجريبي والديني الميتافيزيقي الروحاني. نما كل من الفكر العلمي والديني في عزلة تامة كل منهما عن الآخر، وطور كل منهما مزاجه الخاص. أطلق جيمس على النهج العلمي "الاتجاه الصارم" وأشار إلى أن متبعي هذا الاتجاه يميلون لكونهم إمبريقيين (تجريبيين) وحتميين وماديين ومتشائمين. بينما طبيعة "الاتجاه اللين" الروحاني يميل متبعوه إلى المثالية وحرية الإرادة والتفاؤل. لم يجزم جيمس أن الحقيقة تعتمد على مزاج أيهما، بل نوعية الافتراضات التي يميل أحدهم لقبولها على أنها حقيقية هي التي تعتمد على هذا المزاج أو ذاك. إذن، النهج البراجماتي يسعى لبناء جسر يسد الفجوة بين الاتجاهين الصارم واللين عبر الفطنة إلى المعنى وقيمة الحقيقة التي تحتويها الافتراضات نفسها بغض النظر عن مزاج أي من المدافعين عنها. ينسب جيمس أصل البراجماتية في أول تقديم لها إلى صديقه "تشارلز بيرس" في مقالته "كيف نجعل أفكارنا واضحة" حيث ابتدأ بيرس نقطته بانتقاد الفلسفة الديكارتية، متهمًا ديكارت بوضع الوضوح كمعيار للأفكار الصحيحة، لكنه لم يوضح مما تتكون الفكرة الواضحة أو كيف نكوّن أفكارنا بشكل واضح. واقترح بيرس من خلال مقالته التي تريد توجيهنا لمعرفة كيف نجعل أفكارنا واضحة أنه يجب أن نرفض أساليب صنع الإيمان في الفلسفة الأولية كما في الشك الديكارتي. وبدلاً عن ذلك، هنالك مكان واحد فقط يمكننا البداية منه، إنه المكان الذي نجد فيه أنفسنا عندما نبدأ. إذا رصدنا عقلنا في أي لحظة، سنجد أن هناك نوعان من الأفكار باستمرار: إما قناعات أو شكوك. الشك يتم تعريفه على أنه حالة من العقل نريد فيها طرح سؤال. بينما القناعة هي حالة من العقل نستطيع فيها طرح تأكيد. يتضمن الشك صعوبة بسبب ضعف القاعدة الحاكمة لإقرار فعلنا. نحن لا نعلم ماذا نفعل غير التخلص من الشك عبر البحث عن جواب للسؤال. نتخلص من الشك عبر إصلاحه أي تأسيسه قناعةً. القناعة هي قاعدة للفعل. عندما يكون لدينا قناعة ما، نعرف ما الذي قد يمكننا فعله في ظروف مناسبة. نحن نتصرف بناء على قناعاتنا، وإلا لما أصبحت قناعات. المبدأ المؤسس للبراجماتية يعلمنا أننا نستطيع أن نطلق على أي افتراض صفة القناعة لو أننا نريد التصرف على أساسها. إن المعنى في أي قناعة هو نوعية الفعل الذي توجهنا له بالضبط. لذلك نحن نجعل الفكرة واضحة عبر تعريفها بالفعل الذي سنقترفه إذا كنا نؤمن بتلك الفكرة وأعطيناها صفة القناعة والاعتقاد، وما يترتب على ذلك الفعل من نتائج إذا كانت الفكرة صحيحة. طور جيمس البراجماتية إلى طريقة لتحديد المعنى واختبار لحقيقة أي افتراض. البراجماتية تعني الاعتقاد أن المعنى الكامل لأي افتراض يتجلى في اختلاف النتائج تبعًا لمدى صحة الافتراض. إذا أراد أحدهم الجزم بصحة أي فكرة، فإن البراجماتي سيسأل: "ماذا إذن؟ ما الفارق الذي ستصنعه الفكرة في حياة أي شخص إذا كانت صحيحة؟" إن الفارق هو الذي يشكّل المعنى الكامل لأي افتراض. إذا كان التصديق بافتراض ما لا يصنع أي فارق، إذن الافتراض هو بلا معنى. يسأل البراجماتي إذا نشب أي خلاف: "ما الفارق الذي يصنعه هذا الافتراض أو ذاك الذي يعتبر نفسه صحيحًا؟" إذا كانت النتيجة بلا فارق، إذن هذا الخلاف هو محض خلاف لغوي. طبقًأ للنظرية البراجماتية حول المعنى، الأفكار هي طريقة للتكييف على البيئة بهدف حل المشكلات. إن العقل البشري يطوّر مفاهيم مجردة تقوم مقام المحسوسات والمرئيات. تمكننا تكوين المفاهيم من تطبيق خبرات الماضي على نطاق واسع من المشاكل وبالتالي توقع المشاكل التي لم تظهر بعد. لدينا العديد من المفاهيم التي لا نستخدمها أبدًا لحل المشاكل. كما الطبيعة تمامًا توفر عددًا هائلاً من الكائنات الحية (بسبب التكاثر الكبير في الأنواع الحية)؛ كذلك الطبيعة البشرية تسمح بعدد هائل من الأفكار التي يستطيع أن يستغلها أي فرد ببذخ. الطبيعة تقوم بالعرض الباذخ، لكي تتأكد من توفير كاف لأي شيء نحتاجه بوفرة. بالنتيجة، على الرغم من أن كل أفكارنا ليست مفيدة لنا، إلا أن الأفكار كوحدة كاملة تقوم بوظيفتها العملية.
طور جيمس نظريته عن المعنى إلى نظرية عن الحقيقة. الأشياء التي ندعوها فقط صحيحة أو خاطئة هي المعتقدات. لا يمكن أن نقول عن الواقع أنه "صحيح" لأنه "موجود" بالتالي هو في حيز الكينونة لا القيمة. إذن، المعتقد يكون صحيحًا طالما يتوافق مع الواقع. هذه هي الصحة العقلية، فالصحيح كفكرة هو متوافق مع الواقع. يوسّع جيمس في هذه النظرية طارحًا سؤال: ما معنى أن نقول أن هذه الفكرة متوافقة مع الواقع؟ - أحيانًا قد تعني أنه يمكن نسخها واقعيًا، مثلاً، عندما يكون لديّ صورة ذهنية عن زوجتي تتوافق مع ما هي فعلاً تبدو عليه.
وبالتالي أقابلها في المطار أتعرّف عليها. لكن معظم الوقت أفكارنا لا "تنسخ" الواقع. أفكارنا حول الكيمياء والاقتصاد ليست نسخًا على سبيل المثال. يمكننا قول عبارات صحيحة حول نماذج الجزيئات دون تخيل أنها تنقل صورة العالم الفيزيائي كما هو. ماذا يعني إذن قول أن المفاهيم تتوافق مع الواقع؟ إن المفاهيم تتوافق مع الواقع إذا كانت تقودنا علاقة مرضية مع الواقع. الحقيقة ترشدنا. يحكي جيمس مثلاً لتقريب معنى الحقيقة بوصفها مرشدة: ضل مسافر طريقه في الجبال وشعر بالتعب والبرد والجوع والخوف. لكنه يكتشف بعد ذلك طريقًا، يرى فيه دليل على وجود بقر، فيستنتج أنه يجب عليه السير على طريق البقر هذا وربما يوجد في نهايته مزرعة ما. يتبع الطريق فعلاً ويصل لوجهة آمنة. تثبت فكرته عن طريق البقر صحتها بنفسها على أنها صحيحة لأنها "أرشدت" المسافر إلى حيث اعتقد أنها سوف ترشده. يرى جيمس من هذه القصة على أنها مثال "الفكرة الصحيحة" لأن جميع الأفكار الصحيحة تقودنا لما نحن نتوقعه. أي فكرة خاطئة سوف تضللنا أو على الأقل ستقودنا لواقع مختلف عن توقعنا. إن أفكار الفيزيائي أو الكيميائي تكون صحيحة إلى الحد الذي تمكنّهما من توقع الواقع وتكراره. نحن نقيّم أفكارنا السليمة بالطريقة نفسها. فلو أننا تبنينا أفكارًا نستخدمها لنجد طريقنا في مدينة أو تخطيط وظيفة، تظل هذه الأفكار صحيحة للحد الذي ترشدنا به نحو وجهتنا التي نريدها.
على الرغم من ذلك، ليس كل معتقد تتجلى فيه نظرية الحقيقة بالبساطة التي تمثلها قصة طريق البقر، لذلك يعتبر جيمس أن جميع معتقداتنا السليمة والعلمية والأخلاقية والميتافيزيقية والدينية لديها هذه القاعدة الجوهرية لعملية التحقق من صحتها. على الرغم من أن معظم معتقداتنا لن يتم التحقق من صحتها بشكل شخصي، فهي تُعتبر صحيحة لأنها قابلة للتحقق من صحتها. فربما المسافر الذي لم يضل طريقه يمر بطريق البقر ولا يسلكه. ومع ذلك هو يعتقد حقًا أنه توجد مزرعة في نهاية هذا الطريق. هذا الاعتقاد لم يكن مفيدًا حينئذ، لكنه قد يكون مفيدًا في حالة الطوارئ في المستقبل. أن نقول أن معتقد هو صحيح يعني أنه قد يرشدنا إلى تحقق حقيقي لصحته سواء تم فعله في الواقع أم لا. إن تعريف الحقيقة الذي تم تطويره بالنظام المحسوس ينطبق كذلك في النظام المثالي. اعتبر جيمس أن العلاقات الذهنية مثل أنظمة الرياضيات حقيقيةً. مثل الأفكار الحقيقية تمامًا للحقائق التي تقودنا بشكل ناجح نحو الواقع المتعين، لذلك الأفكار الصحيحة للمبادئ قد ترشدنا عبر الواقع المجرد. والأفكار الخاطئة في النظام المجرد سوف تفشل تمامًا مثل الأفكار الخاطئة في النظام السلوكي. في أي حال من الأحوال، تقودنا الأفكار الخاطئة إلى التنافر والإحباط. يعبر جيمس عن أهمية الحقيقة في النظام المثالي: "نحن لا نستطيع التعامل بسرعة ورخاوة مع العلاقات المجردة مثل التجربة المحسوسة. لأنها تتحكم فينا: نحن يجب أن نتع��مل معها بشكل ثابت سواء أحببنا النتائج أم لا."
***
∷الإمبريقية الراديكالية∷
==============
نظرية جيمس عن المعنى والحقيقة تم تدعيمها بنظريته عن "الراديكالية الإمبريقية" التي لم توضح فقط بعض القضايا المتعلقة بفهمنا، بل كذلك دعمت محتوى نظرته عن الواقع. أي بلغة فلسفية، إنه لم يوضح فقط قضايا إبستمولوجية، بل كذلك قدّم محتوى ميتافيزيقي. لقد كان جيمس إمبريقيًا صريحًا ورفض الفكرة العامة حول بدء الفلسفة من المفاهيم المجردة. تأتي جميع معارفنا على هيئة تيار من الخبرة المتتابع باستمرار. ثم عندما نقوم بعملية التفكير (إنتاج الأفكار) نقوم بقطع هذا التيار إلى قطع ثم تجميده <مثلما نأخذ صورة فوتوغرافية لمشهد متحرك>. يتكون أي مفهوم من شذرة استاتيكية ومنفصلة للوعي الذهني الذي يُعدّ تمثيل لجزء من تيار الوعي المستمر. على سبيل المثال، المفاهيم البسيطة مثل "بحيرة" أو "غابة" تمثّل تيارات متحركة ضخمة زاخرة بالحياة (نتاجًا لخبرتنا). تختلف راديكالية جيمس الإمبريقية عن الإمبريقية التقليدية لكل من جون لوك، وجورج بيركلي، وديفيد هيوم لأن هؤلاء الفلاسفة البريطانيون اعتقدوا أن الخبرة الأساسية تتكون من فكرة بسيطة مثل لون أزرق أو ملمس ناعم. لاحظ جيمس أننا نخبر العلاقات بالبدائية نفسها التي نخبر بها الصفات الأساسية والثانوية للأشياء. مثلاً، نحن نخبر اللون الأزرق في سياقات متنوعة لأشياء زرقاء مثل: سماء زرقاء، قلم أزرق، توت أزرق. إن مفهوم "أزرق" هو تجرّد تم تقطيره من كل هذه التجارب مع الأشياء الزرقاء. العلاقات هي كذلك جزء من الخبرة وليست مجرد أدوات مفاهيمية لتنظيم الخبرة. لتوضيح وجهة نظر جيمس، عندما ندرك "أمًا وطفلها"، نحن ندرك علاقة بالفورية نفسها التي ندرك بها كلا الفردين الذين يكوّنون هذه العلاقة. نستطيع أن نقول المثل على المدركات حول الارتباطات غير الحية مثل "التلال والوديان" أو "الريح والمطر".
تعتبر إمبريقية جيمس أنه لا ثمة شيء يجب اعتباره معرفةً إلا إذا تم تجربته، وكل شيء تم تجربته يجب اعتباره معرفةً. تتجاهل الإمبريقية التقليدية العلاقات المجرّبة لأنها لا تناسب الاعتقاد القديم أن المعرفة مكوّنة من أفكار بسيطة. اعتقد جون لوك أن الأفكار البسيطة تقطن بشكل ما في ذهننا مثل معلبات الحساء داخل دولاب تخزين. إنها تدخل الذهن عبر الحواس وتكوّن لبنات البناء لجميع الأفكار المعقدة. على النقيض فإن جيمس يشير إلى أننا نخبر العالم في البدء كجزء من تيار مستمر من الخبرة ثم بعد ذلك نطوّر الأفكار البسيطة الاستاتيكية. لكي نفهم الاتصال بين النظرية البراجماتية والإمبريقية الراديكالية نحتاج إلى فحص دور المفاهيم في نظرية جيمس للمعرفة. إن التركيز على الخبرة هو الذي يدعّم سبب النظرية البراجماتية حول المعنى. لكي نفهم أولوية الخبرة نحتاج إلى نظرة مقربة من المفاهيم. عندما نركّز على المفاهيم في أي لحظة من الزمن، سنجد أن المفاهيم تكوّن أجزاءً من الخبرة. فلنأخذ مثالاً لطبيب يفحص حلق طفل ويرى تغيير لونه فيعتقد أن الطفل يعاني من عدوى ما. عندما يقوم الطبيب بفحص المريض فإنه قد يتلوّى أو يرتبك، لكن بالطبع أعراض العدوى ستكون منطقية فقط في سياق حلق المريض. الطبيب والمريض والعدوى كل ذلك يتدفق في تيار الخبرة. لكن عندما يفكر الطبيب في التشخيص الطبي، فإنه يستخدم المفاهيم، وليكن مفاهيم حول عدوى بكتيرية أو مضاد حيوية. إنه يعرف المفاهيم بشكل واضح ومتميز وثابت. إذ إنه يعرفها في المنشورات الطبية ويمكنه مناقشتها مع زملائه الأطباء. لكن حتى عندما يفكر بفعالية فهو يتدفق مع تيار الخبرة، وتشكل المفاهيم جزءًا من تلك الخبرة. المسألة الابستمولوجية الرئيسية تتناول الاتصال بين المفاهيم الاستاتيكية الواضحة والجزء من الواقع الذي تنتمي إليه هذه المفاهيم. أي هذا الاتصال بين مفهوم العدوى البكتيرية واللون الذي يراه الطبيب في سياق تململ الطفل وهو يفحص حلقه. في النظرية الابستمولوجية عند جيمس تمثل المفاهيم الإدراكات أي أنها تقوم مقامها وتحل محلها. عندما نريد التفكير في خبرة ما، فإننا نتفكر في المفاهيم التي ننتوي تحققها إلى إدراكات. مثلاً، عندما نخطط لرحلة ما، مفاهيمنا عن مسارات الطرق والمطارات يمكنها أن تحل محل أو تستبدل السفر واقعيًا. عندما نختار طريقين، لا يجب أن نسافر على الطريقين في الوقت ذاته قبل اتخاذ قرار اختيار واحد منهما. بل لا يجب أن نسلك كل طريق في خيالنا. مجموعة المفاهيم التي تحتوي على رقم الرحلة ووقت المغادرة والوجهة تحل محل الواقع الحسّي المُدرك الضخم. إذا كانت معتقداتنا حول هذه المفاهيم صحيحة، إذن سيكون التصرف بناءً عليها يوصلنا للنتيجة المنشودة. يتساءل العديد من الناس إذا كانت أفكارنا ترشدنا للطريق الصواب لأنها صحيحة، أم أن أفكارنا صحيحة لأنها ترشدنا للطريق الصواب. نظرية جيمس تقول أن الإرشاد نفسه هو الحقيقة (أي النتيجة العملية الواقعية). إن فعالية المفاهيم في إرشادنا للواقع هي ما تجعلنا نحكم عليها بصحتها. تتكون صحة المفهوم من مدى توافقيته مع الواقع، ويتوافق المفهوم مع الواقع عبر إرشادنا إلى الجزء من الواقع الذي ينتمي إليه هذا المفهوم. مثال المفاهيم التي ترشدنا إلى وجهة جغرافية ما يبدو عاميًا وتافهًا. لكنه يقرّب لنا الصورة حول طريقة عمل المفاهيم في إرشادنا عبر تيار الخبرة المتدفق نحو الخبرة التي نسعى لها. الآن إذا كان المفهوم لا ينتمي إلى أية خبرة، ولا يمكنه أن يرشدنا إلى أية خبرة على نحو يمكن تصوّره، ومدى صحة أو خطأ هذا المفهوم لا يصنع أي فارق، إذن ببساطة هذا المفهوم بلا معنى. تقول البداهة البراجماتية أنه (لا ثمة فارق لا يصنع اللافارق). بالتالي الكثير من الجدالات الفلسفية تكون محض سفسطة لغوية بلا معنى. لا يمكن ألا يوجد فارق بين مفهومين باستثناء الفارق الذي يصنعه هذا الفارق أو ذاك في كيفية تعاملنا مع الواقع المحسوس. الواقع هو الحكم. يوضح جيمس طريقته لمعرفة معنى أي فكرة عبر البحث عن تبعاتها الواقعية. حيث يطلق على الإمبريقية الراديكالية صفة الشرط المنهجي. لا يجب الاعتراف بأي شيء على أنه حقيقة إلا ما يمكننا اختباره في زمن محدد عبر تجارب محددة؛ ولكل صفة للواقع تم اختبارها هكذا، يجب أن يتواجد مكان ما في النظام النهائي للواقع.
***
::مختصر الكتاب::
===========
0_ مقدمة: الكتاب محاضرات ألقاها جيمس في معهد لويل في بوسطن وجامعة كولومبيا في نيويورك، ويقول إن الحركة البراجماتية اكتسبت زخما مؤخرًا، وحان الوقت لتقديم صورة موحدة لهذه الفلسفة حتى يتمكن الناس من فهم قيمتها بوضوح.
1_ المحاضرة الأولى: كل شخص لديه فلسفته الخاصة التي تتحدث عن مشاعره العميقة حول الحياة والعالم. ولهذا السبب يقول جيمس إنه يرغب في التمييز بين مزاجين فلسفيين رئيسيين. أصحاب الميول اللينة والقاسية، يتوافقان تقريبًا مع فلسفة العقلانيين والتجريبيين.
العقلانية دائمًا أحادية، حيث تختصر جميع الظواهر في مبدأ واحد. إنها تتعامل مع الكليات في حين أن التجريبية تعددية وتتعامل مع الأجزاء. ترتبط العقلانية عمومًا بالإيمان بالله. ومع ذلك، يتم استبدال هذه الآراء بمفهوم الله كحقيقة مطلقة. ينتقد جيمس الفلسفة العقلانية لانفصالها عن عالم الحياة اليومية ولتصنيفها الشر كجزء ضروري من المطلق، وهو ما قد يسميه التجريبيون تجاهلًا قاسيًا لمعاناة الناس. وذلك لأن وجهة النظر المطلقة يبدو أنها تبرر الشر والمعاناة كشيء سيتم حله في الاتحاد النهائي مع المطلق. تقدم براجماتية جيمس وجهة نظر بديلة لكل من العقلانية والتجريبية.
2_ المحاضرة الثانية: يهتم البراغماتيون بالفرق العملي الذي تحدثه النظرية. يقتبس جيمس من تشارلز بيرس، الذي يعتبر مؤسس الفلسفة البراغماتية، الذي يقول إنه من أجل "تطوير معنى فكرة ما، لا يحتاج الناس إلا إلى تحديد "السلوك المناسب لإنتاجه"، وهو "أهميته الوحيدة". وليس من المستغرب أن تنهار العديد من الخلافات الفلسفية إلى عدم الأهمية في اللحظة التي يتم فيها إخضاعها لاختبار العواقب الملموسة. البراغماتية كانت ولا تزال تمارس من قبل العديد من الفلاسفة العظماء. الواقعية ليست دوغمائية، ولا تسعى إلى تحقيق نتائج خاصة، وتسمح للدين والعلم بالعمل معًا. يجب أن تصبح النظريات أدوات يمكن استخدامها بشكل جيد. البراغماتية هي أيضا نظرية الحقيقة. تصبح الأفكار التي هي جزء من تجربة الناس حقيقية عندما تساعد البشر على الدخول في علاقة مرضية مع أجزاء أخرى من تجربتهم. عندما يكون لدى الناس تجربة جديدة تتعارض مع أفكارهم القديمة، فإنهم يحاولون قدر الإمكان الاحتفاظ بتلك المفاهيم القديمة وتطعيم الفكرة الجديدة دون الإخلال بالبنيات العقلية الموجودة. يعتبر الرأي الجديد صحيحًا فقط بقدر ما يمكن دمجه في نظام الاعتقاد. يعود جيمس إلى الدين، مشيرًا إلى أن الداروينية قد حلت محل الإيمان بالله، وأن المطلق - "بديل الله" عند العقلانيين - قد حل محل الإيمان بالله في الفلسفة العقلانية. وفي حين أن مثل هذه الأفكار قد تريح الناس، إلا أنها لا تزال بعيدة ومجردة. ومع ذلك، فإن هذه الأفكار الدينية الجديدة ليست موضع اعتراض من جانب البراغماتيين إذا كان لها غرض ما.
3_ المحاضرة الثالثة: تبدأ المحاضرة الثالثة بمراجعة التمييز الفلسفي بين الجوهر والصفة. على سبيل المثال، قد يكون للمكتب سمات معينة، مثل الصلابة، الموجودة في مادة الخشب. ومع ذلك، فإن الاسمانيين – الذين لا يؤمنون بالمفاهيم العالمية أو المجردة – يدعون أن الجوهر فكرة عديمة الفائدة. علاوة على ذلك، تعرضت فكرة الجوهر المادي لانتقادات من قبل كل من الفيلسوف العقلاني جورج بيركلي والفلاسفة التجريبيين جون لوك وديفيد هيوم. وبالتالي، فإن المادية – وجهة النظر القائلة بأن كل شيء في الوجود يعتمد على المادة – لا تفترض بالضرورة الإيمان بالمادة كمبدأ. بل إن المادية عندما تُفهم على نطاق أوسع هي عكس الروحانية أو الإيمان بالله. في الواقع، يقول جيمس، لا فرق إذا كان العالم قد نشأ من مادة أو روح، وانسحب العلماء والفلاسفة الحكماء من مثل هذه النزاعات عديمة الفائدة.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

And again, I doff my cap to Buck Mulligan for getting it right.

I am not a pragmatist, but I respect what James is trying to do here.

Also, I gotta say that in terms of writing philosophy, he (James) is definitely head and shoulders above many a profound, pithy, erudite thinker.

I do think there's some essential value to well-written prose, especially when its not taking the form of fiction or poetry or what-have-you and the writer can be easily excused for obscurities, necessary obfuscations, arcane terminology and clunky grammar.

It ain't easy writing philosophy, so I do grade on a curve in this corner of the literary world, but when someone can actually put their ideas down in a comprehensible, accessible form I will be the first to applaud, even if I'm not totally jibing with where they want to take me.

Also, I'll never forget reading this at a tender age on a porch at night, by a beach, listening to the waves rumble, looking at the ice in my drink cast sparkling shadows on the wicker table as I'm reading about reality and appearance.

[Baher Soliman · Rating 1 out of 5]

فلسفته كارثية، حيث لا تجعل قيمة الأشياء في ذاتها بل في الثمن الذي يدفع فيها، فلا فرق وفق هذه الفلسفة بين الخير والحق وبين كونهم سلعًا، بل الدين نفسه عندهم قيمته ليست في نفسه بل فيما ينتجه، بل جعل جيمس معيار صحة العقائد هو التجربة، واعتبر قضايا العلم قضايا حقيقية لأنها مفيدة عملياً، وهو نقيض الموقف العلمي تماما، طبعًا هذه الفردية البراجماتية هي صدى للتمزق العقدي في أمريكا في القرن التاسع عشر.
ووليم جيمس نفسه يقول : إن الحقيقي في أوجز عبارة ليس سوى النافع المطلوب في سبيل تفكيرنا، تمامًا، كما أن الصواب ليس سوى الموافق النافع المطلوب في سبيل مسلكنا.
ده كلام جيمس..وفيه النفعية واضحة كالشمس..وهو يجعلها أحد مكونات برجماتيته ..نفعية+ فلسفة وضعية.
وهو حقيقة ثابتة عنه فهو لا يُعادي الأديان لا لأنها صحيحة في نفسها، وإنما لأنها مفيدة في الإنسان وموقفه هذا متقارب جدًا مع موقف فيورباخ ..هذا فضلًا عن حقيقة مذهبه في الوجود الإلهي فالأمر يطول ..فهذه الفلسفة هي إلحاد برجماتي لا ترى في الدين حقيقة موضوعية .

[Steve]

I can’t “rate” this book because I only understood a tiny fraction of it. It’s a series of 8 lectures, and I had the impression it was not delivered to professional philosophers or even to philosophy students - but the attendees must have been quite well educated if they had any chance of comprehending the lectures. The book was published in 1907 but I think the lectures may have been given several years before that. Anyway, I “read” the book in some sense but vast portions were completely meaningless to me. Oh well. I’m really fascinated by philosophy, but so much of it is impenetrable for me.

[Antonia Faccini · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es demasiado completo y bellísimo, aunque al final de la clase preferí a Peirce, siento que es porque no había leído los últimos dos capítulos de este libro. Es una lástima hasta ahora haber leído “Pragmatism and humanism” y “Pragmatism and religion” porque sí siento que son capítulos en los que se deja mucho más claro el aspecto pluralista del pragmatismo y cómo es una doctrina filosófica que se aleja del trascendentalismo absoluto y también, sobre todo, del naturalismo crudo (que es algo a cuestionar en Dewey, me parece). Todo buen filósofo, a mi parecer, es historiador de la filosofía, y James tiene una consciencia filosófica tan amplia que por eso puede plantear una doctrina en el medio que, por ejemplo, aunque rehuye al dogmatismo, acepta la posibilidad de una experiencia infinita detrás de nuestras experiencias finitas y rehuye así al naturalismo crudo y a la fijación por los hechos.

Es muy difícil poner un quote porque todas las lectures se implican mutuamente y quedaría muy descontextualizado.

[John Pistelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pragmatism is often hailed as the United States's unique contribution to philosophy. While this school of thought got its name from pioneering semiotic philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, it was popularized by Peirce's more academically successful friend, William James, who defined and applied the term in ways Peirce eventually rejected. Though luckier in life than the ill-starred Peirce, James also had a peripatetic professional career. A son of the Swedenborgean amateur philosopher Henry James, Sr., and a brother to the major American novelist and literary critic of his generation, James began as a painter, took a medical degree, pursued experimental psychology, turned to comparative religion and philosophy, and became a popular lecturer and author in the latter decades of his life. In Pragmatism, based on a series of public lectures and published in 1907, James elaborates and defends the philosophy implicitly underlying the rest of his work, including his psychological and religious theories.

As if to exaggerate pragmatism's stereotypically American quality, James defines the philosophy as one that seeks to know not the absolute and eternal truth, as idealist and rationalist philosophers from the Platonists to the Cartesians enjoin us, but rather to understand any given proposition's "cash-value," i.e., its practical worth and social function. James doesn't use pragmatism only to refute idealism; he wants it to mediate between idealism and its opposite in materialism and empiricism. While he does associate pragmatism with some traditional enemies of idealism and rationalism—

It agrees with nominalism for instance, in always appealing to particulars; with utilitarianism in emphasizing practical aspects; with positivism in its disdain for verbal solutions, useless questions, and metaphysical abstractions

—James also hopes to rescue religious faith from the ruins in which Darwinism and a host of other 19th-century scientific developments had left it. Granted, James accepts the central Darwinian insight that living things' behavior, to include humanity's most abstract reasoning, is adaptive:

[T]he pragmatistic view [is] that all our theories are INSTRUMENTAL, are mental modes of ADAPTATION to reality, rather than revelations or gnostic answers to some divinely instituted world-enigma…

But James, having defined truth as an adaptive instrument of active man, brings the deity in through the back door: we believe in God not because God is real, nor because we find evidence of His design in nature and natural law, but because it's too hard to live without faith, especially after Victorian science has burdened us with the second law of thermodynamics and its corollary in the eventual heat-death of the universe:

A world with a God in it to say the last word, may indeed burn up or freeze, but we then think of him as still mindful of the old ideals and sure to bring them elsewhere to fruition; so that, where he is, tragedy is only provisional and partial, and shipwreck and dissolution not the absolutely final things. This need of an eternal moral order is one of the deepest needs of our breast. And those poets, like Dante and Wordsworth, who live on the conviction of such an order, owe to that fact the extraordinary tonic and consoling power of their verse. Here then, in these different emotional and practical appeals, in these adjustments of our concrete attitudes of hope and expectation, and all the delicate consequences which their differences entail, lie the real meanings of materialism and spiritualism—not in hair-splitting abstractions about matter's inner essence, or about the metaphysical attributes of God. Materialism means simply the denial that the moral order is eternal, and the cutting off of ultimate hopes; spiritualism means the affirmation of an eternal moral order and the letting loose of hope. Surely here is an issue genuine enough, for anyone who feels it; and, as long as men are men, it will yield matter for a serious philosophic debate.

And though determinism perhaps makes more sense in the crystalline realm of logic, where each decision and development further enchains us to a fatal syllogism, we believe in free will for the same reason we believe in God—that we can do nothing new without the hope it provides.

Free-will pragmatically means NOVELTIES IN THE WORLD, the right to expect that in its deepest elements as well as in its surface phenomena, the future may not identically repeat and imitate the past.

James's highest value is creative, constructive activity. He objects to rationalism and idealism, no less than to an absolute and therefore tragic or deterministic materialism, because they leave us prostrate before a universe already finished, a world that does not need us to collaborate in its ongoing fecundity.

In our cognitive as well as in our active life we are creative. We ADD, both to the subject and to the predicate part of reality. The world stands really malleable, waiting to receive its final touches at our hands. Like the kingdom of heaven, it suffers human violence willingly. Man ENGENDERS truths upon it.

Instead of optimism and pessimism, two passive worldview in which we sit back and wait for the inevitability that good or bad things will happen, James promotes "meliorism," the belief that the world can become a better place, but only if we rouse ourselves to make it so:

Meliorism treats salvation as neither inevitable nor impossible. It treats it as a possibility, which becomes more and more of a probability the more numerous the actual conditions of salvation become.

Unlike so many despairing mandarins of his era, including his own illustrious novelist brother who liked to bemoan the spread of vulgarity, James embraces the modern. He sees truth, beauty, and goodness—even, in some sense, God—not as eternal forms but as realities we bring into being with our activity on the world, a world more and more humanized and globalized in the early 20th century:

We want water and we turn a faucet. We want a kodak-picture and we press a button. We want information and we telephone. We want to travel and we buy a ticket. In these and similar cases, we hardly need to do more than the wishing—the world is rationally organized to do the rest.

He moreover frames pragmatism both politically and religiously, defining the pragmatist as a "happy-go-lucky anarchistic sort of creature" and the philosophy with "the protestant reformation." Despite anarchism's foreign connotation in James's own period, when it would have been associated with European assassins and bomb-throwers, when named in concert with Protestantism, readers may be reminded of America's cultural founding by Puritans, not to mention their anarchic outcasts like Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams.

James's anarchism is as much a matter of form as content. While James professed not to understand his brother's more rarefied later fictional productions, he himself adopts an irresistibly quotable pugnacious, playful individual literary voice, with its lecturers' vernacular and aural energy, its vividness and clarity, raising a stylistic maypole in philosophy's gray precincts. Pragmatism, then, is American not only in its love of cash and its obsession with God, but in its passion for freedom.

What might pragmatism and William James mean to us today? In his magisterial and absorbing work of popular nonfiction, The Metaphysical Club (2001), Louis Menand explains the late-19th- and early-20th-century rise of pragmatism in pragmatic terms. He wants to know what it did for its proponents and adherents and their society. He argues that pragmatism arose after the Civil War because that unprecedentedly bloody conflict filled its children with a dread of non-negotiable moral principles, the kind that had motivated the fervid Great-Awakened abolitionists and eventually the Boston Brahmins themselves—from the complacent Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., to the avant-garde genius Emerson—to wage the war. This seems persuasive only in the case of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: he served in the war and was wounded three times, unlike James, who was notoriously spared the uniform by his family along with his brother Henry, leaving their two less distinguished brothers to fight.

Luckily, the preternaturally well-informed Menand has a host of other contexts to explain his pragmatist quartet—Holmes, James, Peirce, and John Dewey. Modern scientific developments, for example: not only Darwin's dysteleological biology of chance and circumstance, but also the development of statistics and probability theory, according to which investigators arrive at scientific truth not through individual insight or discovery but through "the law of errors," a kind of reliable approximation arrived at by averaging informed observers' best guesses. Menand suggests that this theory, first formulated in astronomy to answer how we might best discover the precise position of heavenly bodies, leads by application to Holmes's defense of free speech as a Supreme Court justice over 70 years later. Society, like astronomy, requires everybody to make their best argument if we're ever to reach something like truth, and therefore we should have the liberty to quarrel and dispute in the public square. This is akin to what James called "pluralism." (I note parenthetically that this compelling bit of liberal jurisprudence directly contradicts today's censorious moral panic about "misinformation," an incoherent concept meaning very little other than "counter-hegemonic ideas," whether right or wrong.)

Then again, Holmes upheld an order consigning socialist Eugene Debs to prison for his anti-war agitation during World War I, so his commitment to free speech was hardly absolute when social order was in question. Menand also mentions Holmes's most notorious judgment, his upholding of the state's interest in eugenics in the Buck v. Bell decision of 1927, though he strangely keeps the damning details out of his book. Holmes based his judgment on the case of an institutionalized woman thought to be “incorrigible” because she’d borne a baby out of a wedlock in her teens, though it turned out she’d in fact been raped by her adoptive cousin and then committed to save her family’s reputation. The jurist nevertheless claimed that "the public welfare" demanded "sacrifices" from the citizenry lest we be "swamped with incompetence." In a sentence with a perhaps chilling contemporary resonance, this pragmatist judge stood on principle: "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

This seeming digression leads us to the politics of pragmatism. For Menand, pragmatism had two practical political effects. First, it allowed for the professionalization of academia, which consolidated along modern (i.e., German) and secular lines in the late 19th century in America. Pragmatism elevated procedure over (religious) principle as the governing ethos of the scientific and humanistic disciplines. Therefore, each discipline, discrete in its own department within the research university, could govern itself by refereeing its internal quarrels with reference to the consistent practices by which its adherents arrive at their conclusions. Academic freedom likewise follows from this idea of peer review and faculty governance: the boundaries of what may be said in a given discipline are for that discipline's own experts to judge, not the timorous public, the moralistic politician, or the meddling trustee. This was surely a momentous and welcome development for freedom of thought—truly, in its way, an extension of the Protestant Reformation, both in Germany and the U.S.—though Menand neglects the downside: the compartmentalization and mechanization of knowledge. The institutions producing and stewarding knowledge were sealed off from the innovations that the amateur, the misfit, and even the madman have always introduced into thought.

This sterilization of the mind is why James doesn't quite fit into the larger story Menand wants to tell. Menand's other political context for pragmatism is the way it answered—particularly in Dewey's career—the need for an ever-expanding technological society to be governed rationally from the top down like the factories it comprised. Menand narrates the late-19th-century move from entrepreneurial to corporate capitalism and the concomitant shift from trade unions to industry unions as the country industrialized; the state likewise grew in response to the modernizing country's greater complexity. Holmes's judgment in favor of eugenics makes sense in this light: why shouldn't the government of an industrial nation take a strong hand in streamlining its work-force? Similarly, Mussolini's claim to have been influenced by James's voluntarism—and the pragmatist flirtation with fascism in general—reflect a convergence on the idea of active governance that dominated the 20th century after the liberal laissez-faire doctrines of the Victorian era proved themselves hard to adapt to the later industrial period. For pragmatism, even in a Darwinian cosmos, there's always something you do to increase power and profit.

Just as professions manufacture needs only they can fulfill—this is why, pragmatically, you can't always trust the doctor to cure you rather than getting you hooked on chronic and inefficacious therapies—so pragmatism "spoke to a generation of academics, journalists, jurists, and policy makers eager to find scientific solutions to social problems," as Menand writes. It gave intellectuals something to do, a claim besides mere mentation on the public's attention and allegiance.

James is certainly complicit in this transformation of the intellectual's social role. There is no room for the disinterested scholar or artist, someone merely curious, in his philosophy, since we must always be asking, "What is it good for?" Which is, incidentally, the basis for his amusing dispute with his brother over the latter's difficult fiction. William couldn't quite fathom the point of a novel that didn't straightforwardly tell the story, even though Henry's works embody what William's psychology textbook had only theorized: the stream of consciousness (see on this topic J. C. Hallman's beautiful little 2013 book Wm & H'ry: Literature, Love, and the Letters between William & Henry James). William argued the theories in his philosophy—and even enacted them in his lively style—but it was Henry who lived them in his novels. As Hallman notes, Henry wrote to William after reading Pragmatism, "All my life…I have unconsciously pragmatised."

We come again to a conclusion familiar in these electronic pages about the anti-philosophers and the philosophy-enders. If the end of philosophy is action, the action succeeding philosophy in writing is literature, because it is in literature that the true claims of the plural are realized in contingent aesthetic objects illustrating and even incarnating the totalities of which plurality is capable—a conviction that should come as no surprise, since the founder of the western philosophical tradition, Plato, wrote his philosophy in the form of closet dramas or proto-novels. There is, I am tempted to say, no urgent reason to prefer Nietzsche to Woolf, Heidegger to Rilke, or, in the matter at hand, William to Henry. Yet William writes with such zest for life, with such emergent personality, that he can be recommended not only as philosophy but as literature too.

Accordingly, Menand also contends that James's pragmatism, unlike that of Holmes or Dewey, "was not a philosophy for policy makers, muckrakers, and social scientists. It was a philosophy for misfits, mystics, and geniuses." He quotes from one of James's letters, the philosopher at his most Emersonian:

I am against bigness and greatness in all their forms, and with the invisible molecular moral forces that work from individual to individual, stealing in through the crannies of the world like so many soft rootlets, or like the capillary oozing of water, and yet rending the hardest monuments of man’s pride, if you give them time. The bigger the unit you deal with, the hollower, the more brutal, the more mendacious is the life displayed. So I am against all big organizations as such, national ones first and foremost; against all big successes and big results; and in favor of the eternal forces of truth which always work in the individual and immediately unsuccessful way, under-dogs always, till history comes, after they are long dead, and puts them on top.

The letter was written in 1899, the year after the Anti-Imperialist League was founded, which James would soon join. Ironically, imperialism was an idea its proponents and champions found pragmatic in the extreme, "cash-value" and all, while James's practically doomed resistance, in the name of the individual and the underdog, and somewhat against the interests of his own class, can be called what but "principled"?

[Mitch Flitcroft · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pragmatism, according to James, is an approach which evaluates theories or beliefs by their practical application. James argues for pragmatism both as a method of inquiry and as a theory of truth. As a method of inquiry, I find it a tempting alternative to the idle metaphysical speculation that I've become accustomed to during my philosophy degree. However, as a theory of truth, I think it raises some interesting arguments but ultimately goes too far in its human-centeredness. Nevertheless, it's a compelling and beautifully-written book.

[Peter Aronson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three-and-a-half stars. (This would have been four stars, but the occasional racist comment threw me a bit. Yeah, he was just a man of his times, but still, it's my rating.)

This is a dense, but thin book, where James lays out the principles of the philosophy called "pragmatism", which is interested in what can be proved to be useful, making it (in my mind) a cousin to "utilitarianism". This includes abstract ideas, which can be proved to be useful if they help actual people. James has little use or patience for abstractions that to not provide some use, even if just consolation at the way of the world, to actual humans.

Pragmatism as presented is not too much out of line with my view of the world, so I didn't find much to disagree with, aside from James' occasional inability to distinguish between how he felt and how the world worked (for instance, deep concern with how the universe ends isn't a sign of higher feelings to me, but rather a sign of neuroticism).

As in The Varieties of Religious Experience, James suffers from having all his knowledge of non-western religion, history and culture be from secondary and tertiary sources. I don't believe he's ever had a handle on any religion other than Christianity, and it shows.

I think my favorite takeaway from this book was James' discussion of how temperament biases our reasoning (from the near the beginning of the first lecture) before we even start thinking, by making us pay more attention to one set of facts or another. This explains a lot of disagreements I have seen.

[Drew Canole · Rating 3 out of 5]

This became a pretty tedious read after the first couple chapters. He seems to keep repeating the same basic ideas and applying them to a variety of subjects.

He states at one point how a theory goes through a few different stages in it's introduction and adoption. Eventually a theory becomes so commonplace that it's taken as obvious and trivial. I think that's what's happened to Pragmatism over the last 100+ years, since it was first formally stated.

It's still a powerful idea and one that's useful. I'm not entirely sure I understand the full force of it's implications, and I want to now read James's essay on truth for a more thorough discussion on that.

I would have preferred a more concise presentation of his ideas than this book. I prefer the secondary literature I've read on the topic.

The book is actually a text taken from a series of lectures James did. I read it on Gutenberg - so I'm not sure this applies to the print versions - but a lot of the important points are presented in all capitals, and I imagine James screaming at the audience to emphasis these. I started to hate James by the end of the book, his constant repetitions and dull prose, so this helped me picture him as an asshole.

[Steve]

Pragmatism is a collection of eight lectures delivered in the American Northeast from November 1907 to January 1908. I listened as if I were in attendance, except that I was driving my car throughout, so I was unable to take the copious notes that any motivated student would. But for the Norwegian accent of the audiobook narrator, I imagined the professor speaking before me – yes, it is true that you get what you pay for since I paid nothing for this experience.

Professor James establishes two bookends with the concepts of rationalism and empiricism. He then places pragmatism in the middle. While I did follow most of his commentary, his terminology felt slightly archaic. I do not know if these categories of thought remain in favor among philosophers today, but I had the sense that we have moved on. He usefully summarizes rationalism, empiricism, and pragmatism in Lecture II:

Rationalism sticks to logic and the empyrean [in reference to established religion]. Empiricism sticks to the external senses. Pragmatism is willing to take anything, to follow either logic or the senses, and to count the humblest and most personal experiences. She will count mystical experiences if they have practical consequences. She will take a God who lives in the very dirt of private fact—if that should seem a likely place to find him.

Her only test of probable truth is what works best in the way of leading us, what fits every part of life best and combines with the collectivity of experience’s demands, nothing being omitted.

In a media era filled with tantalizing, often fleshy, clickbait, delivered through sources high and low – and that in substance amounting to nothing more than a mirage as I well know – I wondered if Professor James’ commentary is worth the investment of our time? While glossy allure can, and repeatedly does, prove irresistibly immediate, reliably devouring our attention, the answer is self-evident. Because these lectures offered such broad, profound insight – incorporating ideas like a multiverse, and the contrast between free will and determinism – I also wondered whether there is anything really new to our eyes and ears, whether we now encounter thoughts that originated decades or centuries ago, refashioned into cloaks that appear newly tailored. In any event, I find it difficult to argue with the good professor’s perspective and aver to you in confidence that my time was well spent with his words, even though this admission may subject me to another accusation of snobbery. Maybe we could do with a bit more snobbery, come to think of it.

[Illiterate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pragmatism rightly ties truth to action. Unfortunately James ties it to utility, thereby suggesting emotional comfort could be as relevant as successful action.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

The history of philosophy, James says, is "to a great extent that of a certain clash of temperaments" that "loads" thought to justify one position over another. These he divides into the "tender minded" who need monistic, religious, rationalistic certainty and the "tough minded" who are materialistic, pluralistic, and irreligious. Given these different value-laden base points, disputes tend to be unresolvable. Pragmatism is James' way to escape competing visions of the truth. Pragmatism evaluates competing claims by responding to one simple question: What is the "concrete consequence" of some abstract position for the life of the individual?

So, rather than arguing about whether God does or does not exist, James' approach is to say that it doesn't really matter because religion gives people hope. "Nirvana" is not a problem concept because it "means safety from this everlasting round of adventures of which the world of sense consists." Whether we have free will or not, belief in free will gives us hope we can make the world a better place.

James' central observation that the two broad philosophical schools are based on differences in temperament and, accordingly, value differences, helps to explain why philosophical and religious disputes are difficult to resolve. His attempt to steer an alternative course, however, bumps into some problems. While there is considerable value in asking the question about the practical consequences to abstract notions and evaluating them in terms of the concrete differences they make in people's lives, how one makes such assessment is itself a product of value differences. Where jihad means hope and motivation to many, it means a threat to others. Also, cultural tribalism and educational background may have as much to do with philosophical differences as temperament. It is, for example, hard to believe that all in the materialist West are "tough minded" whereas those in the non-materialistic Muslim world are "tender minded." Clearly, more is involved in accounting for religious and philosophical differences. When James calls for a pragmatic or "melioristic" type of theism as an alternative to "crude materialism" and "transcendental absolutism," he is on his weakest ground. James seems willing to entertain falsity in place of truth if there's some practical benefit involved. Also, to have hope and security requries more credibility than James' "wink-wink, it's o.k. to have your belief because it's makes you feel better" type of approach.

On the whole, this is a thoughtful attempt to suggest fresh ways of looking at old, intractable problems.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

William James shows why people are reading his philosophy a century after he delivered the lectures that make up the bulk of this work. His writing style is highly readable, and yet he does not shy away from untranslated Greek or German phrases and concepts. In a too-short summary, his idea of pragmatism could be described as assigning utility to an argument based on the outcomes that the argument can yield - if the resolution to an argument does not lead to a tangible difference in observable reality, then the argument is deemed unfruitful and discarded.

This insight cuts the Gordian knot of resolving debates between members of differing faiths - and I include Atheism in my list of faiths for this purpose. Consider the Hitchens/Dawkins atheistic positions of recent vintage: their disputes with believers can be far better answered via pragmatic approaches. Is there a difference in day-to-day existence regarding whether God created fossils pre-buried in the rock or whether the Earth is older than the Biblical literalists claim? (Interestingly, nearly all of the literalists rely on reading the Bible in translation - in Hebrew there is a lot more nuance than may be presupposed). To answer the rhetorical question, the differences in day-to-day existence are few, thus rendering that debate of relatively meager significance.

A passage I particularly liked comes near the end of his last lecture, in discussing the impact of pragmatic approaches to religion:

In the end it is our faith and not our logic that decides such questions, and I deny the right of any pretended logic to veto my own faith. I find myself willing to take the universe to be really dangerous and adventurous, without therefore backing out and crying 'no play.' I am willing to think that the prodigal-son attitude, open to us as it is in many vicissitudes, is not the right and final attitude towards the whole of life. I am willing that there should be real losses and real losers, and no total preservation of all that is. I can believe in the ideal as an ultimate, not as an origin, and as an extract, not the whole. When the cup is poured off, the dregs are left behind for ever, but the possibility of what is poured off is sweet enough to accept.

[for-much-deliberation ... · Rating 5 out of 5]

William James's explanations on the philosophical tradition of pragmatism.

As mentioned in lecture 2: "Pragmatism represents a perfectly familiar attitude in philosophy, the empiricist attitude...
A pragmatist turns his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power. That means the empiricist temper regnant and the rationalist temper sincerely given up. It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against dogma, artificiality, and the pretence of finality in truth."

All eight lectures can be read online here: http://www.authorama.com/pragmatism-1...

[M. I · Rating 4 out of 5]

ان الفلسفة هي أسمى المساعى الانسانية ، وهي أشدها تفاهة وإهمالاً في آن . انها تعمل في داخل أدق الشقوق وتفتح أوسع الصور المتخيلة .فالمذهب العقلي دائماً أحديُّ هو مبدأ من الكليات والكونيات ويعظم من وحدة الاشياء . في حين ان التجريبية تبدأ من الاجزاء وتجعل من الكل طائفة او مجموعة . والمذهب العقلي عادة يعتبر نفسه اكثر تديناً من التجريبية . يطلق على المذهب العقلي ، اللين العريكة ، تعقلي يقر بالمبادىء ، تبصري ،مثالي، تفاؤلي، ديني ، مؤمن بالارادة الحرة، يقيني . اما التجريبي فهو الصعب المراس ، تجريبي يقر بالوقائع ، احساسي ، مادي ، تشاؤمي ، لاديني، قدري ، تعددي، ارتيابي.
ان الطريقة البراجماتية هي في الاصل وبصفة أولية طريقة لحسم المنازعات الميتافيزيقية التي لولاها وبدونها ، ما كان يمكن لها ان تنتهي . ان البراجماتية تمثل اتجاهاً مألوفاً تماماً في الفلسفة ألا وهو الاتجاه التجريبي ، ولكنها تمثله في شكل اكثر تطرفاً وأقل ممانعة فيه واعتراضاً عليه في تفس الوقت ، مما سبق لها ان اخذته على عاتقها حتى الان . ان البراجماتي يولى ظهره بكل عزم وتصميم والى غير رجعة ، لعددكبير من العادات الراسخة المتأصلة العزيزة على الفلاسفة المحترفين ، إنه ينأى بعيداً عن التجريد وعن عدم الكفاية ، ويعرض عن الحلول الكلامية ، وعن التعليلات القبلية الدرئية وعن المبادىء الثابتة .وهو يولى وجهه شطر الاستنادية والمحسوسية والكفاية ، شطر الحقائق والوقائع ، شطر العمل والاداء والمزاولة وشطر القوة . وفحوى ذلك كله ان البراجماتية تعني الهواء الطلق وإمكانات الطبيعية المتاحة ، ضد الوثوقية التعسفية واليقينية الجازمة . فالبراجماتي يتشبث بالوقائع ، بالتخصيص بالتمييز بالتماسك ، ويلاحظ الحقيقة وهي تعمل في حالات معينة خاصة ثم يعمم . فالحقيقة عنده ، تصبح اسما تصنيفياً لكل انواع القيم العاملة المحددة في الخبرة . والبراجماتية تنسج من العلوم من حيث انها تفسر المجهول بالمعلوم وغير الملاحظ بالملاحظ ، وهي تجمع بين القديم والجديد في تناغم وتآلف . ان البراجماتية قد تكون هي الموفق السعيد لطرق التفكير التجريبية مع متطلبات الناس الدينية.
ان الاعتقاد بالواحد او المتعدد ، هو التصنيف الذي له الحد الاعلى من عدد النتائج . ان اهم نوع من الوحدة يدرك بين الاشياء ، من وجهة النظر البراجماتية هو وحدتها الجنسية . فالاشياء توجد في انواع ، وما يتضمنه النوع بالنسبة لفصيلة او نموذج واحد ، يتضمنه ايضاً بالنسبة لكل فصيلة اخرى اى نموذج آخر من ذلك النوع . ان ميزان الشر المائل في واقع الامر ، يتحدى كل طاقة الصبر الانساني وأناته. إن إلهاً يستطيع ان يستطيب مذاق هذه الكمية الوافرة الزائدة من الرعب والهول والفزع ، ليس إلهاً صالحاً لان يستغيث به البشر ، إن قواه البهيمية مرتفعة جداً وبعبارة أخرى فإن المطلق بهدفه الأوحد ليس الإله الشبيه بالانسان لعامة الناس من الكافة . ان العالم مليء بقصص جزئية تسير متوازية بعضها بحذاء بعض، مبتدئة ومنتهية في اوقات متباينة ، وهي تتشابك وتتحابك وتتداخل عند نقاط معينة ، ولكننا لا نستطيع ان نوحدها توحيداً كاملاً في عقولنا . ان العالم واحد اذن بقدر ما نجربه ونختبره على انه متسلسل الارتباط ومركب من حلقات متصلة ، إنه واحد بقدر ما يبدو من عديد الالتحام والضم والاقتران المحددة ، ولكنه كذلك ايضاً ليس واحداً بقدر ما نجد فيه من عديد الفصم والقطع والفصل والحل المحددة .فلا هو كون واحد صرف وبحت ، ولا هو كون متعدد صرف وبحت . ان الأحدية المطلقة تحرم حتى النظر في أمرها جدياً واصمة ذلك بأنه مناف للعقل من مبدأ الامر ، فمن الجلي أن البراجماتية يجب ان تدير ظهرها للأحدية المطلقة وتولي وجهها شطر طريق التعددية الاكثر تجريبية .

ان طرائق التفكير الاساسية عن الاشياء هي اكتشافات لأسلاف سحيقة في القدم استطاعت ان تحتفظ بنفسها طوال وخلال خبرة كل الزمن اللاحق وهي تشكل مرحلة واحدة كبرى من التوازن في تطور العقل الانساني ، مرحلة البداهة . اما المراحل الاخرى فقد طعمت نفسها من هذه المرحلة واستطاعت ان تبتز منها ، ولكنها لم تنجح ابداً في ان تزيحها من مكانها . مرحلة البداهة في الفلسفة فإنها تعني شيئاً اخر مختلفاً تماماً ، انها تعمي استعماله لأشكال فكرية معينة ، او فئات معينة من التفكير . ان البداهة تتجلى كمرحلة محددة تماماً في فهمنا للاشياء ، مرحلة تشبع ، بطريقة ناجحة نجاحاً لا قياسياً ، الاغراض التي من أجلها نفكر .
ان الحقيقة في نظر المذهب العقلي جاهزة وكاملة منذ الازل ، في حين انها في نظر البراجماتية لا تزال في التكوين والاصطناع ، وتنتظر جزءاً من ملامحها من المستقبل . فالكون في جانب مغلق ومصون وآمن ، وفي الجانب الاخر لا يزال يتابع مغامراته ويسعى في طلبها.
على الاسس البراجماتية اذا كان فرض الله يعمل إكفاء ورضا في اوسع معاني الكلمة ، فهو فرض صحيح ، ومهما تكن الصعوبات المتخلفة منه ، فالخبرة تومئ الى ان الفرض يعمل إكفاء ورضا .
المدرك يعرف أيما حقيقة او واقع يعمل بمقتضاه ويشبهه بطريقة مباشرة او غير مباشرة ، والشعور المدرك حسياً يعرف الحقيقة او الواقع كلما انتهت فعلتً او كومناً بمدرك يعمل بمقتضى ذلك الواقع او يشبهه او بطريقة اخرى يرتبط بسياقه ومحتواه . والمدرك الاخير قد يكون إما هسًّا نفسياً وإما فكرة متعلقة بمراكز الحس عن طريق الخبرة العملية اذا كان الشعور نهائياً هسًّا نفسياً ، وعن طريق الايحاء المنطقي او الناشئ عن العادة اذا كانت مجرد صورة في العقل فحسب .
لا تعني الإنسية "بالحقيقة" شيئا اكثر من الخبرات الحسية والتصورية الذهنية الاخرى التي قد تجد خبرة راهنة معينة نفسها مختلطة بها في الواقع من الامر .

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

In sum, I am both intrigued and confused by James’ pragmatism. His intention to find a middle way between rationalism and empiricism seems like the right instinct—holding onto a sense of religious conviction, of a call to higher living and something beyond us, while refusing to neglect our lived and felt experience as a primary source of knowledge.

I am interested in James' suggestion that we should adjudicate truth, reality, and philosophy through its practical “value,” whether it “works,” its “usefulness,” or its ability to produce “good.” I struggled to identify a moment where James clearly identified what the object of these things were, or what good means in this sense. In essence, working and useful for what? The best sense I got for how he would answer that is twofold: 1) psychological coherence. Ideas are good in the sense that they help us cohere our lived experience into an integrated whole and keep us from the frustration of cognitive chaos (caused by the kind of esoteric philosophy he is critiquing) and 2) meliorism. Ideas are good to the degree to which they contribute to the development of a better world, though what defines this “better world” seems loose and somewhat ephemeral beyond simply “less suffering”? And what if these two ends conflict? Or two visions of a meliorated world conflict ?

I am particularly intrigued by the way in which his psychological training influenced his theories. He seems to capitulate to human psychological tendencies as our path to truth, noting that “man engenders truth” and our “experience, as we know, has ways of boiling over, and making us correct our present formulas” (which as I understand it correlates strongly with where modern psychology has gone). Yet, I worry about the consequences of this kind of capitulation. We must trust our own experiences and allow them to guide us, especially within oppressed communities long taught to distrust themselves, but we must also interrogate them. As James notes in his first essay, we are very good at living into our own cognitive biases.

[Bahadir Baskaya · Rating 4 out of 5]

William James is the writer of this book and he is talking about pragmatism and explains it throughout the book although I can say that idea is very simple and can be understandable. Sometimes writing is highly composed of complicated words and philosophical discourses you need to be familiar with philosophical terms in order to fully understand this book.

The book has composed of eight lessons of William James. They are very understandle and on point. Especially, the “what is pragmatism?” And “pragmatism and religion” chapters affected me so much and it was very informative. Also the chapters about absolute truth and its reflection on different ideologies represented pretty good. And the lesson about pragmatism on absolute truth was very well represented and understandable.

Although it is a hard book to read, I think this is a must read book in our century because the ideas has affected the society so much. I read the book as Turkish translation and I have to say that Turkish translation was very well done the words and the meaning kept as same as the book. I have researched about some words and concepts, maybe a translator notes can be added in order to explain the concepts better to the reader.

I can say that it is a fairly good book if you want to start learning about pragmatism but you need to be mindful that you need to be familiar with the philosophical words and terms.

[Will Graham Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

More than anything else that I've read, this aligned with and further cohered my philosophical outlook. He perfectly nails my beliefs about the best mode for evaluating hypotheses and operating in the world -- skeptic relying on available evidence, distrustful of default intuitions -- while also aligning with my belief in the immense practical utility and necessity of faith coherent stories and purpose. This middle road between the "tough-minded empiricist" and the "tender-minded rationalist" is exactly the balance that I think is important. He articulates these points in clear and compelling fashion with ample examples. This was occasionally dense or difficult to follow. He also makes some broad claims that warrant additional skepticism and pushback. But overall, this was one of the most profound and useful pieces I've ever read. Very much the right time and context for me to read this.