What do you think?
Rate this book
The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Philosophy
This Elibron Classics book is a reprint of a 1898 edition by Longmans, Green, and Co., New York, London, Bombay.
289 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 22, 2000
215 people are currently reading
547 people want to read
About the author
William James
344 books1,349 followersLibrarian 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
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
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 28, 2020
William James And The Right To Believe
William James's "The Will to Believe and other Essays in Popular Philosophy" is a collection of nine essays written over a course of seventeen years -- from 1879 -- 1896 together with a Preface. The last of the essays is the controversial essay for which the collection is named, "The Will to Believe" which, James admitted, might better have been called "The Right to Believe." The essays originated as lectures which James delivered to philosophical or theological clubs at various universities. The book is dedicated to James's friend, the philosopher Charles Peirce, to whom James says he owes "more incitement and help than I can express or repay."
The collection was published in 1897, after James's "Principles of Psychology" but before the "Varieties of Religious Experience", "Pragmatism", and a "Pluralistic Universe". I was struck by how many of James's lasting themes had been developed in this relatively early book -- including his pluralism and what he calls in the Preface to the book his radical empiricism. The book illustrates James's efforts to weave together insights from psychology, philosophy, and religion without great regard for narrow lines of professional specialization. The book also shows, in the wake of the "Principles of Psychology", James's increasing concern with religious questions. Early in 1896, James wrote to a friend that "I am more interested in religion than in anything else, but with a strange shyness of closing my hand on any definite symbols that might be too restrictive. So, I cannot call myself a Christian, and indeed go with my father in not being able to tolerate the notion of a selective personal relation between God's creatures and God himself as something ultimate." (Quoted in Robert Richardson's "William James in the Maelstrom of American Modernism" at 364-365)
The book tries to make a place for and show the importance to life of a belief in transcendent reality. James is far from endorsing any specific creed. In the Preface, James points out that his lectures had been addressed to sophisticated college audiences whose members would be troubled by the possibility of religious faith in an age of science and skepticism. James pointed out that if he had been addressing a different kind of audience -- his example is adherents of the Salvation Army -- the focus of his remarks would have been different, as James would have felt himself required to critique a too easy and too full belief as opposed to a skepticism about the possibility of any belief. The thrust of the essays is thus to defend a right to believe, and it is important to remember that James is directing his remarks to the perceived needs of his hearers.
In making his argument, James discusses the nature and limitations of rationality and of what many people today term scientism -- the belief that only the physical sciences allow us to know what is true. The essays rely on James's psychology in showing the selective character of human awareness and perception. We see and focus upon reality in accordance with the questions we bring to it. James objects to the "monistic" view of reality which sees everything as part of a single interconnected fact or "block". He argues for pluralism and for attention to specific facts and detailed. Reality is not, for James, either an absolute block or a mere sand-heap of unconnected particulars. Rather, it exhibits loose interconnections and a spirit of, in words he would use again in his final essay of 1916, "ever not quite". Arguing against a mechanically deterministic universe, James argues for the possibility of chance using specific and homely examples. It is possible, James argues, that I could walk home down one street rather than another. It is possible, he claims, that a man who had brutally murdered his wife might have done something else, and that some other result would have been morally better than the killing. In understanding reality, James argues, we need to look forward rather than back, and use the energy and activity that may make our lives purposeful. If a person is caught on a cliff and needs to jump to safety, he will be more likely to do so if he believes he is able to do so. If he approaches the moment with trepidation, doubt and fear, fail he will. Thus, based upon a variety of considerations, James argues in these essays that it is rational for to adopt a believing attitude towards a transcendent source in reality and to take the ethical and metaphysical risks attendant upon such a belief. James does not always help himself in his choice of language, and his teaching has been subject to misunderstanding and ridicule. It is a difficult, challenging teaching which takes time to unpack and consider.
The first four essays in the collection, including "The Will to Believe" are the most directly concerned with questions of religious belief and the nature of human rationality. In "The Dilemma of Determinism", James gives his fullest consideration to the question of determinism and chance.
"The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life" is perhaps James's most sustained treatment of ethical questions, and he ties the question of different types of moral attitudes to questions of one's religious attitude. The two essays "Great Men and their Environment" and "The Importance of Individuals" argue, for the importance of individual effort and individual leaders in creating and changing human society. These essays still have much to teach in countering various forms of historical determinism. The collection closes with an early essay critical of Hegelian absolutism and an essay showing James's interest in and sympathy for psychical research. A persistent theme of James is that there is more than one way to understand reality.
This book is a pivotal work of James in that it ties together his work in psychology with his ongoing interests in religion and philosophy. The beauty of James's prose should not blind the reader to the complexity of James's thought. This is an excellent work with which to begin a reading of William James.
Robin Friedman
William James's "The Will to Believe and other Essays in Popular Philosophy" is a collection of nine essays written over a course of seventeen years -- from 1879 -- 1896 together with a Preface. The last of the essays is the controversial essay for which the collection is named, "The Will to Believe" which, James admitted, might better have been called "The Right to Believe." The essays originated as lectures which James delivered to philosophical or theological clubs at various universities. The book is dedicated to James's friend, the philosopher Charles Peirce, to whom James says he owes "more incitement and help than I can express or repay."
The collection was published in 1897, after James's "Principles of Psychology" but before the "Varieties of Religious Experience", "Pragmatism", and a "Pluralistic Universe". I was struck by how many of James's lasting themes had been developed in this relatively early book -- including his pluralism and what he calls in the Preface to the book his radical empiricism. The book illustrates James's efforts to weave together insights from psychology, philosophy, and religion without great regard for narrow lines of professional specialization. The book also shows, in the wake of the "Principles of Psychology", James's increasing concern with religious questions. Early in 1896, James wrote to a friend that "I am more interested in religion than in anything else, but with a strange shyness of closing my hand on any definite symbols that might be too restrictive. So, I cannot call myself a Christian, and indeed go with my father in not being able to tolerate the notion of a selective personal relation between God's creatures and God himself as something ultimate." (Quoted in Robert Richardson's "William James in the Maelstrom of American Modernism" at 364-365)
The book tries to make a place for and show the importance to life of a belief in transcendent reality. James is far from endorsing any specific creed. In the Preface, James points out that his lectures had been addressed to sophisticated college audiences whose members would be troubled by the possibility of religious faith in an age of science and skepticism. James pointed out that if he had been addressing a different kind of audience -- his example is adherents of the Salvation Army -- the focus of his remarks would have been different, as James would have felt himself required to critique a too easy and too full belief as opposed to a skepticism about the possibility of any belief. The thrust of the essays is thus to defend a right to believe, and it is important to remember that James is directing his remarks to the perceived needs of his hearers.
In making his argument, James discusses the nature and limitations of rationality and of what many people today term scientism -- the belief that only the physical sciences allow us to know what is true. The essays rely on James's psychology in showing the selective character of human awareness and perception. We see and focus upon reality in accordance with the questions we bring to it. James objects to the "monistic" view of reality which sees everything as part of a single interconnected fact or "block". He argues for pluralism and for attention to specific facts and detailed. Reality is not, for James, either an absolute block or a mere sand-heap of unconnected particulars. Rather, it exhibits loose interconnections and a spirit of, in words he would use again in his final essay of 1916, "ever not quite". Arguing against a mechanically deterministic universe, James argues for the possibility of chance using specific and homely examples. It is possible, James argues, that I could walk home down one street rather than another. It is possible, he claims, that a man who had brutally murdered his wife might have done something else, and that some other result would have been morally better than the killing. In understanding reality, James argues, we need to look forward rather than back, and use the energy and activity that may make our lives purposeful. If a person is caught on a cliff and needs to jump to safety, he will be more likely to do so if he believes he is able to do so. If he approaches the moment with trepidation, doubt and fear, fail he will. Thus, based upon a variety of considerations, James argues in these essays that it is rational for to adopt a believing attitude towards a transcendent source in reality and to take the ethical and metaphysical risks attendant upon such a belief. James does not always help himself in his choice of language, and his teaching has been subject to misunderstanding and ridicule. It is a difficult, challenging teaching which takes time to unpack and consider.
The first four essays in the collection, including "The Will to Believe" are the most directly concerned with questions of religious belief and the nature of human rationality. In "The Dilemma of Determinism", James gives his fullest consideration to the question of determinism and chance.
"The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life" is perhaps James's most sustained treatment of ethical questions, and he ties the question of different types of moral attitudes to questions of one's religious attitude. The two essays "Great Men and their Environment" and "The Importance of Individuals" argue, for the importance of individual effort and individual leaders in creating and changing human society. These essays still have much to teach in countering various forms of historical determinism. The collection closes with an early essay critical of Hegelian absolutism and an essay showing James's interest in and sympathy for psychical research. A persistent theme of James is that there is more than one way to understand reality.
This book is a pivotal work of James in that it ties together his work in psychology with his ongoing interests in religion and philosophy. The beauty of James's prose should not blind the reader to the complexity of James's thought. This is an excellent work with which to begin a reading of William James.
Robin Friedman
August 15, 2022
Instead of pointing to the flaws in James’ arguments, we might sympathize with the suffering that fed his desperate need for optimism, purpose, God.
October 27, 2015
فصل قيمة الحياة هو من اضفى للكتاب
محتوى جيد ما
لك ان تعتقد وستكون مصيباً لانك بذلك تنجي من نفسك
ولك ان لا تعتقد وستكون مصيباً في ذلك لانك سوف تهلك ولا محالة
باختصار: انك ستجعل احد العالمين الممكنين حقاً وحقيقة واقعية
بثقتك او بعدم ثقتك
وليس لكل واحد من العالمين في تلك الحالة وقبل ان تقوم
انت بدورك
الا احتمال الوقوع!
February 17, 2023
Religious faith is often dismissed with the words: “People believe what they want to believe”. The genius of William James is to make this sound like a good thing. Rather than finding fault with the bias, prejudice and self-interest underpinning our cherished beliefs, he defends and celebrates this aspect of our nature. In a word, he makes cognitive bias respectable.
His whole proposal is that belief is primarily passional, volitional and pragmatic in nature, and only secondarily cognitive. When it comes to deeply held convictions, what we feel and what we want are more significant than what we think or theorize. This is not just a concession to human fickleness, it’s the absolutely ordinary and healthy way that humans interact with the world. His argument is not for the truth of religion, but rather “a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced”. James himself was certainly not convinced by dogmatic religion. Yet despite this, he admits to having “long defended to my own students the lawfulness of voluntarily adopted faith”.
For James, the religious person with their beliefs is not that different from anyone else arriving at their worldview, be it religious, scientific, philosophical or home grown. That’s because the primary function of any belief or worldview is to gratify our personal needs. Our emotional inclinations, our practical and future purposes, are the driving force of our beliefs. Our beliefs, in turn, are the legitimation of the way we live and meet our needs. In short, life surges ahead, and belief follows in its wake.
Such needs should not be regarded as weakness, as some flaw in our mental constitution (i.e., religion as a crutch). The ‘needs’ could instead be thought of as human capacities in search of a worthy worldview: “We demand of our conception of the universe” James writes “a character for which our emotions and active propensities shall be a match”. We need a set of convictions – religious or not – that we can do something with, that will exercise us! This is why James thought religion will always have the upper hand over secular worldview: any belief based on an underlying moral order or divine presence will exercise our capacities more urgently than a determinism, atheism or materialism which claims there is no deeper purpose to life.
It is in this light that James understands faith, as an element of our active nature, as a restless capacity in need of testing. Those who believe faith is a poor substitute for evidence miss this point, a view famously epitomized by an opposing William, the mathematician and polymath William Clifford: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." But our William is not simply saying that ‘you must have faith’ because there isn’t enough evidence. The point, rather, is that even when the evidence is in, humans still have an intrinsic need to take some things on faith, to not know, to meet the world blindfolded. We simply don’t want a world in which everything squares with our understanding, in which the mystery of life is overlaid with a dull veneer of known quantities.
James’ view on faith is really an expression of his ‘pragmatic’ view of truth for which he is well known, a position he returns to frequently. His claim is that in some areas of life our response (or faith) makes a proposition true or false: “Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact”. It is particularly around morals, religion, free will and personal relations that “faith creates its own verification”. Answers to questions like Is life worth living? or Is this a moral universe? are in the final analysis provided by our personal investment. If we believe in a moral universe, then we will make it so. The universe is a lock to which our response is the key. This is especially true in the realm of interpersonal relations. If we believe a person has potential for success, our faith in them (actively expressed) may well bring it about. If we believe that a person is worth getting to know, only taking the initiative can prove (or disprove) our hunch. If we waited for complete evidence in such situations, the moment would pass, and our belief would forever remain a question mark. We may have avoided being mistaken, but at the cost never discovering a new truth. But for James, the risk of being wrong is a price worth paying: “I can believe that worse things than being duped may happen to a person in this world”.
Keeping this in mind, religious faith approaches the universe in the same personal way, as a 'Thou' rather than an 'It'. If we are to have any chance of discovering the truth about our place in the universe, we need to meet it half way. Answers there may be – or maybe not – but only if we take the first step. What exactly this truth is, or what a religious take on the universe looks like, is an open question. It need not have specifically hammered out doctrines because “it is a fact of human nature, that people can live and die by the help of a sort of faith that goes without a single dogma or definition.” James himself only posits God’s existence as a hypothetical, and then in metaphorical terms: God behind the veil of world, the world soaked in a spiritual atmosphere, the world as divine, the world as sacred, as other. The only qualification is that it needs to be a “live option” for our day and culture, not some previous era’s notion of life, the universe and everything.
But it got me thinking. Approaching our planet as a ‘Thou’ may be one of those 'live options' for today. If ever we had a practical emergency in search of a religious/philosophical worldview, it would be to stop viewing the earth as a resource, as a mere ‘it’ to be exploited, and more as an Other to be valued, as a Sacred to be venerated. Is this not what indigenous religion (so recently labelled as ‘primitive’) sought to express, both in life and belief? Even the monotheistic creeds are belatedly incorporating the needs of our environment into their doctrinal systems.
I’ve focused rather one-sidedly on the “defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters”. To qualify, however, James does not claim that our practical and emotional needs are the only thing shaping our beliefs. Fully aware of the great scientific advances of his day, he never doubted that our knowledge of reality also impacts and modifies our beliefs, and will continue to do so. Beliefs – religious or otherwise – will never remain fixed as they are forever subject to two forces: incoming data about the world (the push factor), and the demands of our emotional and practical natures (the pull factor). The 'belief department' of our mind is no more than a transit station between our impressions and knowledge of reality (input), and the expression of our needs, wants and motives (output). But if we really had to choose what our beliefs are shaped by, it is the latter. People believe what they want to believe, what they need to believe, and what they like to believe.
There’s so much I gained from this book, even when disagreeing, even while recognizing that the study of religion has burgeoned exponentially since James’ day. But the fact that new titles still refer to James' work indicates that he continues to inform the conversation today.
More: I've nailed my take away from this book: our believing is not there for the sake of the beliefs; instead, the beliefs are there for the sake of the believing. It's the believing that counts. The beliefs are just fuel.
Even more: Apply James' model to conspiracy theories and all of a sudden you see how their 'logic' works. Take the insidious claim that the Sandy Hook massacre never happened. If you begin with a massive enough fear ('they're going to take our guns away!') and practical need ('we need to stop this happening!'), then you will soon create an entire belief system to fuel these emotional and practical priorities: 'it was all an elaborately scripted hoax staged by the government to take away our guns and steal our freedoms!'
His whole proposal is that belief is primarily passional, volitional and pragmatic in nature, and only secondarily cognitive. When it comes to deeply held convictions, what we feel and what we want are more significant than what we think or theorize. This is not just a concession to human fickleness, it’s the absolutely ordinary and healthy way that humans interact with the world. His argument is not for the truth of religion, but rather “a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced”. James himself was certainly not convinced by dogmatic religion. Yet despite this, he admits to having “long defended to my own students the lawfulness of voluntarily adopted faith”.
For James, the religious person with their beliefs is not that different from anyone else arriving at their worldview, be it religious, scientific, philosophical or home grown. That’s because the primary function of any belief or worldview is to gratify our personal needs. Our emotional inclinations, our practical and future purposes, are the driving force of our beliefs. Our beliefs, in turn, are the legitimation of the way we live and meet our needs. In short, life surges ahead, and belief follows in its wake.
Such needs should not be regarded as weakness, as some flaw in our mental constitution (i.e., religion as a crutch). The ‘needs’ could instead be thought of as human capacities in search of a worthy worldview: “We demand of our conception of the universe” James writes “a character for which our emotions and active propensities shall be a match”. We need a set of convictions – religious or not – that we can do something with, that will exercise us! This is why James thought religion will always have the upper hand over secular worldview: any belief based on an underlying moral order or divine presence will exercise our capacities more urgently than a determinism, atheism or materialism which claims there is no deeper purpose to life.
It is in this light that James understands faith, as an element of our active nature, as a restless capacity in need of testing. Those who believe faith is a poor substitute for evidence miss this point, a view famously epitomized by an opposing William, the mathematician and polymath William Clifford: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." But our William is not simply saying that ‘you must have faith’ because there isn’t enough evidence. The point, rather, is that even when the evidence is in, humans still have an intrinsic need to take some things on faith, to not know, to meet the world blindfolded. We simply don’t want a world in which everything squares with our understanding, in which the mystery of life is overlaid with a dull veneer of known quantities.
James’ view on faith is really an expression of his ‘pragmatic’ view of truth for which he is well known, a position he returns to frequently. His claim is that in some areas of life our response (or faith) makes a proposition true or false: “Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact”. It is particularly around morals, religion, free will and personal relations that “faith creates its own verification”. Answers to questions like Is life worth living? or Is this a moral universe? are in the final analysis provided by our personal investment. If we believe in a moral universe, then we will make it so. The universe is a lock to which our response is the key. This is especially true in the realm of interpersonal relations. If we believe a person has potential for success, our faith in them (actively expressed) may well bring it about. If we believe that a person is worth getting to know, only taking the initiative can prove (or disprove) our hunch. If we waited for complete evidence in such situations, the moment would pass, and our belief would forever remain a question mark. We may have avoided being mistaken, but at the cost never discovering a new truth. But for James, the risk of being wrong is a price worth paying: “I can believe that worse things than being duped may happen to a person in this world”.
Keeping this in mind, religious faith approaches the universe in the same personal way, as a 'Thou' rather than an 'It'. If we are to have any chance of discovering the truth about our place in the universe, we need to meet it half way. Answers there may be – or maybe not – but only if we take the first step. What exactly this truth is, or what a religious take on the universe looks like, is an open question. It need not have specifically hammered out doctrines because “it is a fact of human nature, that people can live and die by the help of a sort of faith that goes without a single dogma or definition.” James himself only posits God’s existence as a hypothetical, and then in metaphorical terms: God behind the veil of world, the world soaked in a spiritual atmosphere, the world as divine, the world as sacred, as other. The only qualification is that it needs to be a “live option” for our day and culture, not some previous era’s notion of life, the universe and everything.
But it got me thinking. Approaching our planet as a ‘Thou’ may be one of those 'live options' for today. If ever we had a practical emergency in search of a religious/philosophical worldview, it would be to stop viewing the earth as a resource, as a mere ‘it’ to be exploited, and more as an Other to be valued, as a Sacred to be venerated. Is this not what indigenous religion (so recently labelled as ‘primitive’) sought to express, both in life and belief? Even the monotheistic creeds are belatedly incorporating the needs of our environment into their doctrinal systems.
I’ve focused rather one-sidedly on the “defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters”. To qualify, however, James does not claim that our practical and emotional needs are the only thing shaping our beliefs. Fully aware of the great scientific advances of his day, he never doubted that our knowledge of reality also impacts and modifies our beliefs, and will continue to do so. Beliefs – religious or otherwise – will never remain fixed as they are forever subject to two forces: incoming data about the world (the push factor), and the demands of our emotional and practical natures (the pull factor). The 'belief department' of our mind is no more than a transit station between our impressions and knowledge of reality (input), and the expression of our needs, wants and motives (output). But if we really had to choose what our beliefs are shaped by, it is the latter. People believe what they want to believe, what they need to believe, and what they like to believe.
There’s so much I gained from this book, even when disagreeing, even while recognizing that the study of religion has burgeoned exponentially since James’ day. But the fact that new titles still refer to James' work indicates that he continues to inform the conversation today.
More: I've nailed my take away from this book: our believing is not there for the sake of the beliefs; instead, the beliefs are there for the sake of the believing. It's the believing that counts. The beliefs are just fuel.
Even more: Apply James' model to conspiracy theories and all of a sudden you see how their 'logic' works. Take the insidious claim that the Sandy Hook massacre never happened. If you begin with a massive enough fear ('they're going to take our guns away!') and practical need ('we need to stop this happening!'), then you will soon create an entire belief system to fuel these emotional and practical priorities: 'it was all an elaborately scripted hoax staged by the government to take away our guns and steal our freedoms!'
May 8, 2013
أجمل مافي الكتاب فصل قيمة الحياة
June 14, 2021
William James was a brilliant psychologist. This is captured well in this set of lectures and articles. If I had more space and time, I'd try to demonstrate the value of the whole volume, but instead let's just look at the title essay, "The Will to Believe."
James says that since the 18th-century Enlightenment and adoption of the scientific method, we are prone to believe things about the natural world based on logic and reason. James thinks this is a good thing.
But for personal and moral matters, we have no recourse to resolved methods for how to solve them and have to navigate them as best we can. In most instances, it's best to assume the most optimistic possibility, even when at bottom we don't know, and perhaps even when at bottom the opposite is true.
One of his example cases here is interesting, but I think gets to the heart of the matter. He talks of how in personal relations, we have to make choices all the time in the absence of knowledge.
Again, James emphatically does not believe a person should adopt this stance with scientific inquiry but when it comes to personal relations, moral matters, religious matters, in cases where the believe will make the situation in the world more agreeable, it is often better to have faith in something that may or not be true, may or may not be knowable.
James says that since the 18th-century Enlightenment and adoption of the scientific method, we are prone to believe things about the natural world based on logic and reason. James thinks this is a good thing.
But for personal and moral matters, we have no recourse to resolved methods for how to solve them and have to navigate them as best we can. In most instances, it's best to assume the most optimistic possibility, even when at bottom we don't know, and perhaps even when at bottom the opposite is true.
One of his example cases here is interesting, but I think gets to the heart of the matter. He talks of how in personal relations, we have to make choices all the time in the absence of knowledge.
"Do you like me or not?" Whether you do or do not depends, in countless instances, on whether I meet you halfway, am willing to assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation. The previous faith on my part in your liking's existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt, ten to one your liking never comes. The desire for a certain kind of truth here brings about that special truth's existence. Who gains promotions, boons, appointments, but the person in whose life they are seen to play that part of live hypotheses, who discounts them, sacrifices other things for their sake before they have come, and takes risks for them in advance? This person's faith acts on the powers above him or her as a claim, and creates its own verification.Just by virtue of believing something, it makes them so.
Again, James emphatically does not believe a person should adopt this stance with scientific inquiry but when it comes to personal relations, moral matters, religious matters, in cases where the believe will make the situation in the world more agreeable, it is often better to have faith in something that may or not be true, may or may not be knowable.
November 10, 2023
إرادة الاعتقاد هي عبارة وعنوان محاضرة وكتاب (The Will to Believe) للفيلسوف وليام جيمس، وعرّفها على أنها إرادة التسليم بمعتقدات قد لا يبررها العقل، ولكن تبررها المنافع العملية التي تنتج عنها، فهي لا تتضمن إيماناً اعتباطياً لا يميز بين الصحيح والفاسد من المعتقدات، بل تتضمن اختياراً حقيقياً ينشأ عن ننيجة لها خطرها. صاغ وليام جيمس تلك العبارة أول مرة سنة 1896، يعني جيمس في هذه المحاضرة بالدفاع عن عقلانية الاعتقاد الديني على وجه الخصوص حتى عند افتقاره إلى أدلة كافية على الحقيقة الدينية. يقول جيمس في مقدمته: «لقد أحضرت معي الليلة [...] مقالة في تبرير الإيمان، ودفاعًا عن حقنا في تبني موقف اعتقادي في المسائل الدينية، رغم حقيقة أن فكرنا المنطقي المجرد قد لا يكون مكرهًا على الاعتقاد به. بناءً على ذلك، فإن «إرادة الاعتقاد» هو عنوان بحثي».
تعتمد حجة جيمس الرئيسية في «إرادة الاعتقاد» على فكرة أن الوصول إلى الأدلة حول ما إذا كانت معتقدات معينة صحيحة أم لا يعتمد بشكل حاسم على تبني هذه المعتقدات أولًا دون دليل. على سبيل المثال، يجادل جيمس أنه قد يكون من العقلانية أن يؤمن المرء بقدرته على إنجاز المهام التي تتطلب الثقة بدون دليل. والأهم من ذلك، يشير جيمس إلى أن هذا هو الحال حتى في مزاولة البحث العلمي. ثم يدفع بأن الإيمان الديني، مثل اعتقاد المرء بقدرته على إنجاز مهمة صعبة، يمكن أن يكون عقلانيًا أيضًا حتى مع افتقار المرء في ذلك الوقت إلى دليل على حقيقة معتقده الديني.
المحاضرة
تُعد محاضرة «إرادة الاعتقاد» لجيمس ومقال «أخلاقيات الاعتقاد» لويليام كليفورد الركيزتان الرئيسيتان للعديد من المناقشات المعاصرة حول التثبتية والإيمان والاعتقاد المُسبق. يتألف كتاب «إرادة الاعتقاد» لجيمس من ملاحظات تمهيدية تليها عشرة أقسام مرقمة بدون عناوين. يصف جيمس محاضرته في ملاحظاته التمهيدية قائلًا «أحضرت معي الليلة [...] مقالةً في تبرير الإيمان، ودفاعًا عن حقنا في تبني موقف اعتقادي في المسائل الدينية، رغم حقيقة أن فكرنا المنطقي المجرد قد لا يكون مكرهًا على الاعتقاد به». وبناء على ذلك، فإن «إرادة الاعتقاد» هو عنوان بحثي. «وفي نهاية ملاحظاته التمهيدية، يقود جيمس إلى قسمه الأول بالقول إنه «يجب أن يبدأ بوضع بعض الفروق التقنية».
الاقسام من الأول – الثالث: تمهيدات
في القسم الأول، يشرع جيمس في مهمة تحديد عدد من المصطلحات المهمة التي سيعتمد عليها طوال المحاضرة:
الفرضيات الحية والميتة - «يقاس موت وحيوية الفرضية [...] بإرداة [المفكر] على التصرف. فيعني الحد الأقصى للحيوية في الفرضية إرادة الإقدام على التصرف بشكل لا رجعة فيه»
الخيار - «اتخاذ قرار بالاختيار من بين فرضيتين»
الخيار الحي والميت - «الخيار الحي هو الخيار الذي تكون فيه كلتا الفرضيتين حيتين»
خيار إجباري ويمكن تجنبه - خيار «لا توجد إمكانية لعدم الاختيار»
الخيار الفوري والتافه - «يكون الخيار تافهًا عندما لا تكون الفرصة فريدة، أو عندما يكون خطر عدم اختياره لا يكاد يذكر، أو عندما يكون القرار قابلًا للعكس إذا ثبت لاحقًا أنه غير حكيم»
خيار حقيقي - «يمكننا تسمية الخيار خيارًا حقيقيًا عندما يكون من النوع الإجباري والحي والمهم»
الاعتقاد - «يجد الكيميائي الفرضية حية بما يكفي لقضاء عام في التحقق منها: فهو يؤمن بها إلى هذا الحد».
في القسم الثاني، يبدأ جيمس بالقول إنه سيدرس بعد ذلك «السيكولوجية الحقيقية لوجهة النظر الإنسانية». هنا يدرس جيمس ويوافق إلى حد كبير على انتقاد رهان باسكال أننا إما لا ينبغي لنا أو لا نستطيع التصديق أو عدم التصديق بمجرد الإرادة. أي أن جيمس هنا يبدو أنه يرفض النزعة الاختيارية العقائدية، «العقيدة الفلسفية التي بموجبها يتحكم الناس اختياريًا في معتقداتهم». في القسم الثالث، على أية حال، يلطف جيمس من تأييده لهذا الانتقاد لـرهان باسكال بالقول إنها «فقط فرضياتنا الميتة هي التي لا تقدر إرادتنا على إعادة الحياة مرة أخرى لها». يعني جيمس بهذا أن الأشياء التي لا نؤمن بها بالفعل هي فقط التي لا نستطيع تصديقها بالإرادة.
القسم الرابع: الأطروحة
يقدم جيمس في قسمه الرابع المختصر للغاية الأطروحة الرئيسية للعمل:
«طبيعتنا العاطفية ليس فقط قانونيًا، ولكن يجب عليها في العموم أن تقرر خيارًا بين الاقتراحات، كلما ظهر أمامها خيار حقيقي لا يمكن بطبيعته تحديده على أسس فكرية؛ على سبيل المثال في مثل هذه الظروف، «لا تقرر، ولكن اترك سؤال مفتوح»، هو في حد ذاته قرار عاطفي -تمامًا مثل تقرير نعم أم لا- ويحظى بنفس النسبة من خطر فقدان الحقيقة».
ومع ذلك، بدلًا من تقديم حجة لهذه الأطروحة، أنهى جيمس هذا القسم بسرعة قائلًا إنه لا يزال «ينغمس في المزيد من العمل التمهيدي».
الاقسام من الخامس- السابع: المزيد من التمهيدات
في القسم الخامس، يفرق جيمس بين الشكوكية حول الحقيقة وإدراكها وما يسميه «الدوغماتية»: «أن الحقيقة موجودة، وأن عقولنا يمكن أن تجدها». فيما يتعلق بالدوغماتية، يذكر جيمس أن لها شكلين؛ فهناك «طريقة مؤيدي المثالية المطلقة» و«طريقة التجريبيين» في الاعتقاد بالحقيقة. يقول جيمس: «يقول مؤيدو المثالية المطلقة في هذا الأمر أننا لا نستطيع أن نصل إلى معرفة الحقيقة فقط، بل ويمكننا أن نعرف متى وصلنا إلى معرفتها، بينما يعتقد التجريبيون أنه رغم أننا قد نصل إليها، إلا أننا لا نستطيع أن نعرف بدقة متى». ثم مضى جيمس ليقول إن «النزعة التجريبية قد سادت إلى حد كبير في العلم، بينما في الفلسفة كان لاتجاه المثالية المطلقة كل شيء بطريقته الخاصة».
ينهي جيمس القسم الخامس معتبرًا أن التجريبيين ليسوا في الواقع أكثر تجريبية بشأن معتقداتهم واستنتاجاتهم من مؤيدي المثالية المطلقة: «أعظم التجريبيين بيننا هم فقط تجريبيون في التفكير: إذ عندما يتركوا لغرائزهم، فإنهم يتشددون مثل البابوات المعصومين. فعندما يخبرنا كليفوردز كم هو آثم أن يكون الناس مسيحيين بمثل هذا «الدليل غير الكافي»، فغير كفاية الدليل هي في الواقع آخر ما يدور في ذهنهم. فبالنسبة لهم الدليل كافٍ تمامًا، إلا أنه يجعل الطريقة الأخرى. ترتيب الكون بأنه لا يوجد خيار حي: المسيحية هي فرضية ميتة من البداية».
يبدأ جيمس القسم السادس بالسؤال التالي: «ولكن الآن، بما أننا جميعًا مؤيدون للحكم المطلق بالغريزة، فماذا يجب أن نفعل بطبيعتنا كوننا طلابًا للفلسفة بشأن الحقيقة؟ هل نعتنقها ونؤيدها؟» ثم يجيب: «أعتقد بصدق أن الأخيرة هي الوحيدة التي يمكننا اتباعها بصفتنا مفكرين. لذلك، فإنني أنا نفسي تجريبي بالكامل بقدر ما ت نظريتي عن المعرفة البشرية».
تعتمد حجة جيمس الرئيسية في «إرادة الاعتقاد» على فكرة أن الوصول إلى الأدلة حول ما إذا كانت معتقدات معينة صحيحة أم لا يعتمد بشكل حاسم على تبني هذه المعتقدات أولًا دون دليل. على سبيل المثال، يجادل جيمس أنه قد يكون من العقلانية أن يؤمن المرء بقدرته على إنجاز المهام التي تتطلب الثقة بدون دليل. والأهم من ذلك، يشير جيمس إلى أن هذا هو الحال حتى في مزاولة البحث العلمي. ثم يدفع بأن الإيمان الديني، مثل اعتقاد المرء بقدرته على إنجاز مهمة صعبة، يمكن أن يكون عقلانيًا أيضًا حتى مع افتقار المرء في ذلك الوقت إلى دليل على حقيقة معتقده الديني.
المحاضرة
تُعد محاضرة «إرادة الاعتقاد» لجيمس ومقال «أخلاقيات الاعتقاد» لويليام كليفورد الركيزتان الرئيسيتان للعديد من المناقشات المعاصرة حول التثبتية والإيمان والاعتقاد المُسبق. يتألف كتاب «إرادة الاعتقاد» لجيمس من ملاحظات تمهيدية تليها عشرة أقسام مرقمة بدون عناوين. يصف جيمس محاضرته في ملاحظاته التمهيدية قائلًا «أحضرت معي الليلة [...] مقالةً في تبرير الإيمان، ودفاعًا عن حقنا في تبني موقف اعتقادي في المسائل الدينية، رغم حقيقة أن فكرنا المنطقي المجرد قد لا يكون مكرهًا على الاعتقاد به». وبناء على ذلك، فإن «إرادة الاعتقاد» هو عنوان بحثي. «وفي نهاية ملاحظاته التمهيدية، يقود جيمس إلى قسمه الأول بالقول إنه «يجب أن يبدأ بوضع بعض الفروق التقنية».
الاقسام من الأول – الثالث: تمهيدات
في القسم الأول، يشرع جيمس في مهمة تحديد عدد من المصطلحات المهمة التي سيعتمد عليها طوال المحاضرة:
الفرضيات الحية والميتة - «يقاس موت وحيوية الفرضية [...] بإرداة [المفكر] على التصرف. فيعني الحد الأقصى للحيوية في الفرضية إرادة الإقدام على التصرف بشكل لا رجعة فيه»
الخيار - «اتخاذ قرار بالاختيار من بين فرضيتين»
الخيار الحي والميت - «الخيار الحي هو الخيار الذي تكون فيه كلتا الفرضيتين حيتين»
خيار إجباري ويمكن تجنبه - خيار «لا توجد إمكانية لعدم الاختيار»
الخيار الفوري والتافه - «يكون الخيار تافهًا عندما لا تكون الفرصة فريدة، أو عندما يكون خطر عدم اختياره لا يكاد يذكر، أو عندما يكون القرار قابلًا للعكس إذا ثبت لاحقًا أنه غير حكيم»
خيار حقيقي - «يمكننا تسمية الخيار خيارًا حقيقيًا عندما يكون من النوع الإجباري والحي والمهم»
الاعتقاد - «يجد الكيميائي الفرضية حية بما يكفي لقضاء عام في التحقق منها: فهو يؤمن بها إلى هذا الحد».
في القسم الثاني، يبدأ جيمس بالقول إنه سيدرس بعد ذلك «السيكولوجية الحقيقية لوجهة النظر الإنسانية». هنا يدرس جيمس ويوافق إلى حد كبير على انتقاد رهان باسكال أننا إما لا ينبغي لنا أو لا نستطيع التصديق أو عدم التصديق بمجرد الإرادة. أي أن جيمس هنا يبدو أنه يرفض النزعة الاختيارية العقائدية، «العقيدة الفلسفية التي بموجبها يتحكم الناس اختياريًا في معتقداتهم». في القسم الثالث، على أية حال، يلطف جيمس من تأييده لهذا الانتقاد لـرهان باسكال بالقول إنها «فقط فرضياتنا الميتة هي التي لا تقدر إرادتنا على إعادة الحياة مرة أخرى لها». يعني جيمس بهذا أن الأشياء التي لا نؤمن بها بالفعل هي فقط التي لا نستطيع تصديقها بالإرادة.
القسم الرابع: الأطروحة
يقدم جيمس في قسمه الرابع المختصر للغاية الأطروحة الرئيسية للعمل:
«طبيعتنا العاطفية ليس فقط قانونيًا، ولكن يجب عليها في العموم أن تقرر خيارًا بين الاقتراحات، كلما ظهر أمامها خيار حقيقي لا يمكن بطبيعته تحديده على أسس فكرية؛ على سبيل المثال في مثل هذه الظروف، «لا تقرر، ولكن اترك سؤال مفتوح»، هو في حد ذاته قرار عاطفي -تمامًا مثل تقرير نعم أم لا- ويحظى بنفس النسبة من خطر فقدان الحقيقة».
ومع ذلك، بدلًا من تقديم حجة لهذه الأطروحة، أنهى جيمس هذا القسم بسرعة قائلًا إنه لا يزال «ينغمس في المزيد من العمل التمهيدي».
الاقسام من الخامس- السابع: المزيد من التمهيدات
في القسم الخامس، يفرق جيمس بين الشكوكية حول الحقيقة وإدراكها وما يسميه «الدوغماتية»: «أن الحقيقة موجودة، وأن عقولنا يمكن أن تجدها». فيما يتعلق بالدوغماتية، يذكر جيمس أن لها شكلين؛ فهناك «طريقة مؤيدي المثالية المطلقة» و«طريقة التجريبيين» في الاعتقاد بالحقيقة. يقول جيمس: «يقول مؤيدو المثالية المطلقة في هذا الأمر أننا لا نستطيع أن نصل إلى معرفة الحقيقة فقط، بل ويمكننا أن نعرف متى وصلنا إلى معرفتها، بينما يعتقد التجريبيون أنه رغم أننا قد نصل إليها، إلا أننا لا نستطيع أن نعرف بدقة متى». ثم مضى جيمس ليقول إن «النزعة التجريبية قد سادت إلى حد كبير في العلم، بينما في الفلسفة كان لاتجاه المثالية المطلقة كل شيء بطريقته الخاصة».
ينهي جيمس القسم الخامس معتبرًا أن التجريبيين ليسوا في الواقع أكثر تجريبية بشأن معتقداتهم واستنتاجاتهم من مؤيدي المثالية المطلقة: «أعظم التجريبيين بيننا هم فقط تجريبيون في التفكير: إذ عندما يتركوا لغرائزهم، فإنهم يتشددون مثل البابوات المعصومين. فعندما يخبرنا كليفوردز كم هو آثم أن يكون الناس مسيحيين بمثل هذا «الدليل غير الكافي»، فغير كفاية الدليل هي في الواقع آخر ما يدور في ذهنهم. فبالنسبة لهم الدليل كافٍ تمامًا، إلا أنه يجعل الطريقة الأخرى. ترتيب الكون بأنه لا يوجد خيار حي: المسيحية هي فرضية ميتة من البداية».
يبدأ جيمس القسم السادس بالسؤال التالي: «ولكن الآن، بما أننا جميعًا مؤيدون للحكم المطلق بالغريزة، فماذا يجب أن نفعل بطبيعتنا كوننا طلابًا للفلسفة بشأن الحقيقة؟ هل نعتنقها ونؤيدها؟» ثم يجيب: «أعتقد بصدق أن الأخيرة هي الوحيدة التي يمكننا اتباعها بصفتنا مفكرين. لذلك، فإنني أنا نفسي تجريبي بالكامل بقدر ما ت نظريتي عن المعرفة البشرية».
June 6, 2011
I may have read this collection while taking a philosophy course with Christopher Morse at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Of the essays, "The Will to Believe" impressed me most with its arguments for the ontologically constituative nature of certain beliefs.
January 6, 2022
Although the work hints at perhaps a closeted brilliance, it is hidden behind veils of unrigorous faith. I warmly welcomed James' pragmatic approach to religion, yet I still found myself drawn away from his works as he seemed to have little to ultimately contribute. He relied on pragmatic premises to set up his defense of religion, but his entire defense of religion came from the premise that belief helped people lead better lives. I give the additional star because there are certainly insightful moments even though I found no solid argument. Through all of this, I must admit: because of my strong aversion to his work, I may have given it insufficient attention and will be receptive to any criticism of this review.
July 20, 2022
I admit, then, that were I addressing the Salvation Army or a miscellaneous popular crowd it would be a misuse of opportunity to preach the liberty of believing as I have in these pages preached it. What such audiences most need is that their faiths should be broken up and ventilated, that the northwest wind of science should get into them and blow their sickliness and barbarism away. But academic audiences, fed already on science, have a very different need. Paralysis of their native capacity for faith and timorous abulia in the religious field are their special forms of mental weakness, brought about by the notion, carefully instilled, that there is something called scientific evidence by waiting upon which they shall escape all danger of shipwreck in regard to truth.
January 7, 2023
وليس هناك من الأوامر المطلقة إلا أمر واحد ،وهو أنه يجب علينا أن نبحث ونوجد أعلى مقدار نتصوره من الحسن ..
كتاب جيد جدا قرأته ضمن مشروعي لقراءة أعمال ويليام جيمس ..الفيلسوف الذي صنع وجه الولايات المتحدة الذي نعرفه الآن .
النجمة الناقصة لكثرة الأخطاء الاملائية في طبعة (آفاق) ربنا يهديهم 😃
كتاب جيد جدا قرأته ضمن مشروعي لقراءة أعمال ويليام جيمس ..الفيلسوف الذي صنع وجه الولايات المتحدة الذي نعرفه الآن .
النجمة الناقصة لكثرة الأخطاء الاملائية في طبعة (آفاق) ربنا يهديهم 😃
April 25, 2022
من له الحق في محاسبتي و قرارات و إيماني
November 28, 2017
What is most interesting about this book is that it was written more than a century ago, an apt reminder that the oft-dismissive debate between scientists, theologians, and mystics has been with us for a long time. It seems that James’ sound rationality for tolerance and philosophical inclusion gained little traction, however, judging from the current academic and professional pre-occupation with the STEM subjects at the expense of philosophy and the liberal arts.
James was the consummate and rare advocate of philosophical balance. He effectively debunks any and all one-dimensional philosophical worldviews in favor of a more holistic and pragmatic perspective; the pragmatic school of philosophy being the one he is most often associated with.
In this book, however, he covers them all. He is not a Pyrrhonist, for sure, but he is most clearly not a slave to the popular dogma of his day and ours, including scientific naturalism, radical empiricism, or determinism.
That said, however, he is no fan of standing in the uncommitted middle. As much as he advocates rationality he gives no comfort to the undecided. It is this tolerant but bold intellect that gives him his special appeal, I think.
The writing is superb but it is philosophy and he writes in a style, as you would rationally expect, typical of his era. He is a bare-knuckle philosopher but his prose is a bit theatrical as a result. I enjoy that style but the combination makes this anything but an easy read. Any attempt to skim it will undoubtedly cause you to put it down.
While the book may not plow new philosophical ground it is an excellent primer on the science v. philosophy debate, which burns even hotter today than it did at the time this book was written. (The scientific naturalists among us would unfortunately argue that it is no longer much of a debate.) As a result, I think this work deserves to be part of every personal library dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.
James was one of America’s pre-eminent philosophers, psychologists, and all-around scholars. A professor at Harvard, he was the first educator in the US to offer a course devoted to psychology.
James was the consummate and rare advocate of philosophical balance. He effectively debunks any and all one-dimensional philosophical worldviews in favor of a more holistic and pragmatic perspective; the pragmatic school of philosophy being the one he is most often associated with.
In this book, however, he covers them all. He is not a Pyrrhonist, for sure, but he is most clearly not a slave to the popular dogma of his day and ours, including scientific naturalism, radical empiricism, or determinism.
That said, however, he is no fan of standing in the uncommitted middle. As much as he advocates rationality he gives no comfort to the undecided. It is this tolerant but bold intellect that gives him his special appeal, I think.
The writing is superb but it is philosophy and he writes in a style, as you would rationally expect, typical of his era. He is a bare-knuckle philosopher but his prose is a bit theatrical as a result. I enjoy that style but the combination makes this anything but an easy read. Any attempt to skim it will undoubtedly cause you to put it down.
While the book may not plow new philosophical ground it is an excellent primer on the science v. philosophy debate, which burns even hotter today than it did at the time this book was written. (The scientific naturalists among us would unfortunately argue that it is no longer much of a debate.) As a result, I think this work deserves to be part of every personal library dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.
James was one of America’s pre-eminent philosophers, psychologists, and all-around scholars. A professor at Harvard, he was the first educator in the US to offer a course devoted to psychology.
September 11, 2012
That 2-star rating is very generous. Here are the essays contained within and a few short comments:
The Will to Believe
Is Life Worth Living
These two essays are a desperate (and failed) attempt to justify the notion of faith.
The Sentiment of Rationality
Reflex Action and Theism
Some poor psychologism as to what constitutues rationality, and more psychologism as to the supposed necessity of accepting theism.
The Dilemma of Determinism
Unilluminating discussion as to the supposed necessary acceptance of indeterminism.
The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life
A well-grounded essay in ethics that espouses a kind of consequentialism. Except for the last few paragraphs where James says something to the effect of that believing in God provides the spark to make a person more moral.
Great Men and Their Environment
The Importance of Individuals
James' endorsement of the theory that history is made by great individuals.
On Some Hegelisms
A welcomed critique of Hegel. The best part of this entire collection comes at the end of this essay where James "strongly urges" the reader to take nitrous oxide.
What Psychical Research has Accomplished
James' endorsement of parapsychology. Yuck. He includes hypnosis in this group, which is legitimate, but everything else... not so much. He can only be forgiven slightly, since he was writing over a hundred years ago, but still--many scientists at the time already knew that virtually everything falling under the umbrella of parapsychology is bullshit.
The Will to Believe
Is Life Worth Living
These two essays are a desperate (and failed) attempt to justify the notion of faith.
The Sentiment of Rationality
Reflex Action and Theism
Some poor psychologism as to what constitutues rationality, and more psychologism as to the supposed necessity of accepting theism.
The Dilemma of Determinism
Unilluminating discussion as to the supposed necessary acceptance of indeterminism.
The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life
A well-grounded essay in ethics that espouses a kind of consequentialism. Except for the last few paragraphs where James says something to the effect of that believing in God provides the spark to make a person more moral.
Great Men and Their Environment
The Importance of Individuals
James' endorsement of the theory that history is made by great individuals.
On Some Hegelisms
A welcomed critique of Hegel. The best part of this entire collection comes at the end of this essay where James "strongly urges" the reader to take nitrous oxide.
What Psychical Research has Accomplished
James' endorsement of parapsychology. Yuck. He includes hypnosis in this group, which is legitimate, but everything else... not so much. He can only be forgiven slightly, since he was writing over a hundred years ago, but still--many scientists at the time already knew that virtually everything falling under the umbrella of parapsychology is bullshit.
January 5, 2025
I spent a month trying to read this book. Few philosophical works are easy reads and this is no exception. Heavy going does not normally discourage me, but in this case I was trying to make sense of discourse in which the author is not, himself, fully convinced of his position. His arguments in its favour (and against the empiricism of which he disapproves but which is clearly natural to him) are based on contemporary gaps in human knowledge – on, in particular, those yawning fissures in nineteenth-century physical and neurological knowledge that were filled up by advancing science in the twentieth century. To put it more simply, James is credulous about about the possibility of ‘psychic phenomena’ and wants to leave room in his world-model for them, and for things such as souls for which science can provide no evidence, nor indeed any rational explanation.
He argues thus in favour of what he is not himself convinced of because he understands the psychological power and utility of superstition and religion, not because he thinks superstitious or religious belief is true. James knew that it is impossible either to prove or to disprove the existence of these things rationally, which of course will always be the case no matter how far science advances, and so he wants to develop a philosophy that leaves room for them without undermining science. I cannot tell you whether he succeeds or fails, because I abandoned the book after reading four or five essays.
He argues thus in favour of what he is not himself convinced of because he understands the psychological power and utility of superstition and religion, not because he thinks superstitious or religious belief is true. James knew that it is impossible either to prove or to disprove the existence of these things rationally, which of course will always be the case no matter how far science advances, and so he wants to develop a philosophy that leaves room for them without undermining science. I cannot tell you whether he succeeds or fails, because I abandoned the book after reading four or five essays.
April 12, 2017
There book on philosophy is an interesting one. It encourages to read more on philosophy classics .
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews