An interesting quote from Emerson, American philosopher and contemporary of William James: "As thinkers, mankind have ever been divided into two sects, Materialists and Idealists;
the first class founding on experience, the second on consciousness; the first class beginning to think from the data of the senses, the second class perceive that the senses are not final, and say, The senses give us representations of things, but what are the things themselves, they cannot tell…
(...)[Kant showed] there was a very important class of ideas or imperative forms, which did not come by way of experience, but through which experience was acquired; that these were intuitions of the mind itself; and he denominated them Transcendental forms.
This is a clear description of the philosophical landscape of those days and actually you can say, that it also applies to our present day situation. And now a third option is added by Peirce and James: pragmatism.
William James was a psychologist and philosopher. His opinions and ideas are scattered over thousands of pages. His Principles of Psychology is a book of more than 1200 pages and parts of it are philosophically relevant. So pragmatism is not one clear doctrine but a collection of principles and philosophical commitments.
According to James was empiricism too much focused on individual elements like impressions, ideas, sensory experiences without paying attention tio the fact how these elements, or sensory data, are related to eachother and can be used to predict future experiences.
An empiricist would say I see a mouse and I see an elephant, but james would add that you also see the relation between the two in respect to their seize. This relation is as real as the sensory impression of a mouse.
Empiricism in its classic British form is essentialy an epistemological position which regards experience as an exclusive witness before a cognitive tribunal in which other sources of evidence are ruled out of court as uncertain or unriliable. The genius of James's empiricism lies precisely in ruling nothing out of court.
The generalized conclusion is that the parts of experience hold together from next to next by relations that are themselves parts of experience. As James puts it, the "directly apprehended universe needs, in short, no extraneous trans-empirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure."
Debat among philosophers should only be about things definable in terms drawn from experience. And philosophical questions can be solved by observing what the different answers mean for the lives of the people who prefer one answer above the other.
If two competing theories dont cause immediate practical differences, then you still can find the better theory by contemplating the question if accepting the one or the other theory would contribute to a succesful life.
This pragmatism is a theory of meaning and truth. According to James here is no single correct description or account of the world. So there also isnt an absolute truth. There are practical effects and possibilities of predicting future experiences based on theories. But these theories can be replaced by better ones any day.
There is a strong belief in the development and growth of knowledge, an evolutionary belief, a definite influence of Darwin.
And as a final remark, keep this pragmatism and its concept of truth in mind, because it comes close to certain theories in modern philosophy of science.
The Discussion
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: here comes annabelle
[13:21] Herman Bergson: This is only a tiny bit of what James all had to say....
[13:22] Herman Bergson: If you have remarks or questions...feel free
[13:22] Herman Bergson: and could you elaborate a bit on your question Timmy?
[13:22] Stanley Aviatik: How do you equate Darwin - a biologist into this
[13:22] Ganymede Blackburn: I'll copy and paste for you, Annabelle. :)
[13:22] Herman Bergson: James was a psychologist...
[13:23] Timmy Allen: I have a feeling that pragmatism is too focused on the results
[13:23] Annabelle Laminsk: okays Gany
[13:23] Herman Bergson: He was interested in the evolution of feelings and beliefs
[13:23] Timmy Allen: whereas sometimes the intentions might be good and results bad
[13:23] Herman Bergson: And he was strongly influenced by Darwin on that
[13:24] Stanley Aviatik: but Darwin limited evolution to the biological only
[13:24] Stanley Aviatik: phenotypes were a much later extension
[13:24] Osrum Sands: It seems clear to me that thougths and ideas evolve ?
[13:24] Herman Bergson: That may be so Stanley but creative thinkers like James saw the wider impact of this theory
[13:25] Samuel Okelly: considering a situation where there are two competing theories, you reffered to one contributing to a succesful life..., in what sense do you mean "succesful" herman?
[13:25] Stanley Aviatik: I realy don't think Darwin intended that extension
[13:25] Osrum Sands: Ah the wonderful gift of Philosophical imagination
[13:25] Osrum Sands: I dont think it matters if Darwin intended it or not
[13:26] Herman Bergson: Indeed osrum..:-)
[13:26] Stanley Aviatik: That's fine - but surely then credit those instead that do, like Richard Dawkins
[13:26] Herman Bergson: But let's get back to Timmy's remark...
[13:26] Mickorod Renard: i saw a program about a guy with no memory function,,,and this meant he had no idea of predicting an idea of future events as he needed memory to base a picture of the future upon
[13:27] Herman Bergson: yes Mick...
[13:27] Herman Bergson: But Timmy's remark..pragamtism too much result oriented
[13:28] Herman Bergson: I dont think that is the case
[13:28] Herman Bergson: pragmatism is as I said before a theory on meaning and truth..
[13:29] Herman Bergson: and stated in a simplified way you could say that truth is that what works the best for the wellbeing of man
[13:29] Herman Bergson: but that is not with absolute certainty..
[13:29] Herman Bergson: while the old theory of truth which James called a copy theory... was
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: maybe truth is what u believe
[13:30] Herman Bergson: that there is a strict one on one relation between a belief and a state of affairs
[13:30] Timmy Allen: yes but what works for one might not work for another
[13:30] Stanley Aviatik: thats surely more relativity - not truth
[13:31] Herman Bergson: No....that was not the idea of pragmatism....intersubjectivity was an important feature of the theory.
[13:31] Herman Bergson: And it isnt that relative...
[13:32] Herman Bergson: we all know when you jump from a high building that you most probably will die
[13:32] Herman Bergson: and there are tons of "truths' in this world like this...
[13:33] Herman Bergson: otherwise we wouldnt have science...
[13:33] Stanley Aviatik: truths - or potentials
[13:33] Timmy Allen: yes but what if the whole building is on fire and you are on the third floor?
[13:33] Timmy Allen: do you jump or not?
[13:33] Samuel Okelly: sounds like truth is induction?
[13:33] Mickorod Renard: if we didnt believe we would die,,,it would evolve that we did die
[13:33] Osrum Sands: red herring Tim
[13:34] Herman Bergson: I dont think that is the issue here Timmy....we would drown in debates on details
[13:34] Timmy Allen: ok
[13:34] Herman Bergson: what most interesting is the concept of truth here.
[13:34] Cailleach Shan: Is it pragmatic of me to believe that I will exit this class smarter than when I entered?
[13:35] Herman Bergson: is science discovering what really exists or is science using theories that work, knowing there can be a better theory?
[13:35] Herman Bergson: It is the meaning of this class and the meaning of your acts Cailleach..:-)
[13:35] Osrum Sands: surly the first Herman
[13:36] Timmy Allen: the truth here might be quite 'westernised' with a materialistic view of life
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: cailleach :-)0
[13:36] Saxon Beresford: I would say it is the second surely
[13:36] Mickorod Renard: science has been proven wrong in the past
[13:36] Herman Bergson: All the time Mickorod..:-)
[13:36] Saxon Beresford: science explores the null hypothesis
[13:37] Saxon Beresford: so if you find one instance that disproves the theory you have to change
[13:37] Herman Bergson: So this pragmatic interpretation of truth isnt that bad..:-)
[13:37] Stanley Aviatik: and therefore it will prove itself wrong - but not overall
[13:37] Mickorod Renard: science evolving
[13:37] Timmy Allen: the fittest theory will survive...
[13:37] Stanley Aviatik: Not true
[13:38] Herman Bergson: That was the idea Timmy...:-)
[13:38] Stanley Aviatik: lots of rubbish science persists
[13:38] Herman Bergson: That is how James saw it indeed
[13:38] Herman Bergson: there is his relation with Darwin again
[13:38] Saxon Beresford: but that is surely a tortology
[13:38] Mickorod Renard: whats that?
[13:38] Saxon Beresford: which theory survives - the fittest - why does it survive - because it is the fittes
[13:38] Herman Bergson: tautology I guess
[13:38] Saxon Beresford: so no real help
[13:39] Timmy Allen: The Nazis in the 2nd world war started with similar ideas though...
[13:39] Herman Bergson: That is perhaps not the case Saxon
[13:39] Mickorod Renard: tutonology?
[13:39] Timmy Allen: that they were the fittest and they should rule the world
[13:39] Saxon Beresford: lol!
[13:40] Herman Bergson: The fittest doesnt refer to the content of the theory...it refers to what in pragmatic terms the theory can predict
[13:40] Cailleach Shan: lol Mick.
[13:40] Mickorod Renard: grin
[13:40] Saxon Beresford: l 'lI get that
[13:41] Samuel Okelly: " that what works the best for the wellbeing of man" - did he mean this simply in a biological sense or in a more general sense too ?
[13:41] Herman Bergson: Well... I guess you are getting exhausted..:-)
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: lololol
[13:42] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: i see people falling asleep
[13:42] Mickorod Renard: i would think in a social sense too
[13:42] Ganymede Blackburn: It's a pretty positivistic view of science, then.
[13:42] Herman Bergson: I think he would mean it in its widest sense...psychologically , socially, biologically...
[13:42] Ganymede Blackburn: The one of James, I mean
[13:43] Cailleach Shan: I like this statement I found on a view of the pragmatic maxim. "pragmatism boil down to nothing more or less than a method of reflection. "
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: imagination is what he liked
[13:43] Herman Bergson: Yes ganymede..slowly but steadily we are closing in on positivism...
[13:43] Ganymede Blackburn: Despite the evolutionary inspiration from Darwin, he still insists on progress.
[13:44] Herman Bergson: maybe nice, Cailleach, but then you have to know the real meaning of pragmatism first..
[13:44] Ganymede Blackburn: I suppose a lot of people read that into Darwin's theories at the time.
[13:44] Herman Bergson: Yes Ganymede...this is the moment in history that the belief in progress really gets shape..
[13:45] Mickorod Renard: I think James was into social betterment wasnt he?
[13:45] Herman Bergson: I would agree on that Mickorod
[13:45] Herman Bergson: What I didnt mention is that he was a religious man too..
[13:46] Herman Bergson: He wrote important treatises on the meaning of religious beliefs
[13:46] Herman Bergson: all in line with his pragmatism..
[13:46] Ganymede Blackburn: How does a pragmatist read the bible? :)
[13:46] Cailleach Shan: lol very slowly
[13:46] Osrum Sands: with his eyes open !!
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: good point os
[13:47] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:47] Saxon Beresford: lol!
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: that can be interpreted in seveal ways
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: The very meaning of the conception of God lies in those differences which must be made in our experience if the conception be true.
[13:47] Samuel Okelly: presumably with an open mind until a better book comes along?
[13:47] Herman Bergson: Well...if religious beliefs make life better than living without such beliefs , was his idea, then religion is a better theory of value than other theories
[13:47] Osrum Sands: definitely
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: so said james
[13:48] Stanley Aviatik: depending on how you define a better life
[13:48] Timmy Allen: which religion of all though?
[13:48] Herman Bergson: yes...but what he overlooked was that a marxist theory might have the same or better result too
[13:48] Timmy Allen: Islam?
[13:48] Cailleach Shan: mmmmm.... not convinced about religious beliefs making life better. It has caused more wars than anything else.
[13:48] Herman Bergson: maybe Timmy
[13:48] Ganymede Blackburn: Any religion will do, right?
[13:48] Ganymede Blackburn: Whatever fits?
[13:49] Mickorod Renard: people cause wars
[13:49] Herman Bergson: If you follow the ideas of pragmatism...any theory/religion would do
[13:49] Osrum Sands: peoples interpretation of religion is the cause of wars
[13:49] Ze Novikov: well said Os
[13:49] Stanley Aviatik: I completely agree Caillbeach
[13:49] Osrum Sands: and mens ego and search for personal and tribal power
[13:49] Mickorod Renard: yea i second that os
[13:50] Osrum Sands: there is an interpretation of Islam which provides for a very peacefull and just world
[13:50] Ganymede Blackburn: Just because so many wars have had religious justification, doesn't mean they had religious causes.
[13:50] Herman Bergson: Well... I hope you have the feeling that it is worth to dig into some articles about William James or some original texts.
[13:50] Ze Novikov: yes
[13:50] Stanley Aviatik: al religions claim peace - few practice it
[13:51] Herman Bergson: He is important to understand future developments in philosophy
[13:51] Osrum Sands: religions or the people in them, Stan
[13:51] Cailleach Shan: I like this prgamatism Herman, although my expectations now are very different from when I was young.
[13:51] Stanley Aviatik: Can you separate the two
[13:52] Osrum Sands: I think so
[13:52] Mickorod Renard: but this was a time for social reform too
[13:52] Stanley Aviatik: pray tell
[13:52] Herman Bergson: We'll meet a few modern philosophers whose ideas you literally can backtrace to James or pragmatism....it still is a strong concept in my opinion
[13:53] Herman Bergson: May I thank you for this brilliant discussion...very instructive I think
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: i wonder where ari was today?
[13:53] Ze Novikov: TY!
[13:53] Saxon Beresford: ty Herman great talk
[13:53] Cailleach Shan: Yes. it's rare for him to be missing from class.
[13:53] Herman Bergson: YES..ARISTOTLE!!!
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: very
[13:53] Herman Bergson: login problems????
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: maybe
[13:53] Mickorod Renard: thanks herman,,,,i still dont understand any of the long words though
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: or away again
[13:53] Timmy Allen: Many thanks for the session Herman
[13:54] Stanley Aviatik: Yes, thank you Herman
[13:54] Herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation
[13:54] Saxon Beresford: lol Mick
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: next is dewey??
[13:54] Herman Bergson: yes next is Dewey
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment