A vontade de crer

by William James, Kamila Pereira (Translator)

William James, um dos fundadores da psicologia moderna, foi um daqueles raros homens que soube transitar com igual destreza entre a Academia e o Templo, entre a racionalidade e a espiritualidade, entre o empirismo e a subjetividade. James estava, de fato, em casa no universo. Mas o seu universo não se resumia ao que residia lá fora. Ele sabia, pois também contemplou tal caminho, que haviam espaços infinitos, ou quase infinitos, também dentro de nós.

Em A Vontade de Crer, uma transcrição de uma de seus conferências dirigida aos grêmios filosóficos de duas universidades americanas (Yale e Brown), James foca exclusivamente na defesa da importância da fé religiosa, e da crença em geral, como ferramentas vitais da mente para galgar grandes conquistas. De certa forma, se nunca ninguém houvesse acreditado em nada sem antes obter comprovação empírica, e se diante de grandes desafios todos os homens e mulheres se resignassem ante as perspectivas de fracasso, talvez nem houvesse uma civilização de pé.

É óbvio que a capacidade de crer, e mais profundamente, a vontade de crer, desempenham papéis vitais em nossas vidas, ainda que muitos não queiram admitir. Nem sempre, é claro, todas as crenças serão racionais. E quase sempre, igualmente, encontraremos aqueles que exploram as crenças alheias. Mas nada disto impede que existam seres que conseguem se observar, se compreender, e viajar dentro de si, e encontrar tesouros e mistérios grandiosos, imateriais, e além de qualquer descrição que possa ser dada somente por palavras.

O editor.

Genres: Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Essays, Nonfiction, American, Spirituality

42 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1896

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

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unul dintre cele mai cunoscute eseuri ale filosofului pragmatist William James (1842 - 1910) este cel intitulat „Voința de a crede”. La origine, a fost o prelegere ținută în fața studenților de la Universitățile Brown și Yale (1896).

În unele situații (îndeosebi în cele vitale, care țin de modul nostru de a vedea lumea, de trăirile noastre), nu contează că nu avem dovezi suficiente pentru o anume credință. În fond, credem mereu cîte ceva și nu căutăm întotdeauna dovezi. Ne mulțumim, astfel, să credem în ceea ce am primit de la alții, în ceea ce ne poate oferi un cîștig (moral, sufletesc), o consolare în suferință. Mai mult, există cazuri cruciale, în care a renunța la credință nu e o dovadă de înțelepciune. Dacă credința mea în Dumnezeu mă face fericit, îmi întărește speranța, nu văd de ce aș renunța la ea.

Deci, nu contează dacă o anume credință e adevărată sau dacă e falsă, dacă are temeiuri sau nu. Și nu optăm pentru una sau alta ținînd seama de dovezi, de probe empirice, de argumente, de temeiuri logice. Justificarea vine din altă parte. Natura noastră pasională ne împinge uneori să luăm decizii acolo unde opțiunile sînt veritabile (inevitabile, importante, vitale) și unde nici o dovadă nu ne arată ce fel de decizie avem de luat.

Credința în Dumnezeu nu poate fi soluționată de intelectul nostru slab. Nu putem decide, în această privință, pe bază de logică. Trebuie să decidem printr-un soi de gîndire vitală. Așadar, credința în Dumnezeu, în măsura în care răspunde așteptărilor noastre și e compatibilă cu celelalte credințe, este o alegere cît se poate de rațională.

Concluzia lui James e că, în unele cazuri, putem opta în mod legitim să credem ceva / în ceva fără a avea nici o justificare obiectivă, fără argumente raționale. E rațional să crezi fără rațiuni (saltul în credință despre care a vorbit Kierkegaard).

***
Bertrand Russell a comentat astfel poziția lui William James: „James obișnuia să predice voința de a crede. În ceea ce mă privește voi predica voința de a te îndoi [Will to doubt]. Nici una dintre credințele (beliefs) noastre nu este în întregime adevărată. Toate au cel puțin o penumbră de vag și eroare. Modalitățile de a spori adevărul credințelor sunt bine cunoscute. Ele constă în a asculta toate părțile, în a admite toate faptele relevante [pentru stabilirea adevărului], în a ne controla prejudecățile / înclinațiile prin discuții cu cei care au înclinații opuse, în cultivarea dispoziției de a renunța la orice ipoteză care s-a dovedit inadecvată”.

[Sanjay · Rating 4 out of 5]

When logic is lame to decide, then, we must, use our passional nature to decide. And this is nothing but excercise of our will.

[Alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

I certainly found the essay fascinating. It's an interesting concept, and one which I agree with a lot, but the exact defense of it found here did not seem to warrant the reputation that this essay has. There are interesting ideas which are not pursued to the extent that I think they could've been. James also takes the logical consequences of the ideas here to be his famous“pragmatism” which I also substantially disagree with.

James starts by acknowledging that the idea that truth is willed, may sound silly, even “vile.” Truth exists separately from us, it's the foundation of science, our civilization, and the pursuit and defense of truth is even a moral obligation that our secular time can agree to live by.

He clarifies what he means by the 'will' in the will to believe: “when I say 'willing nature,' I do not mean only such deliberate volitions as may have set up habits of belief that we cannot now escape from, I mean all such factors of belief as fear and hope, prejudice, and passion, imitation, and partisanship, the circumpressure of our caste and set. I absolutely agree that people are motivated to ignore facts due to bias, and not just the masses, but the intellectuals, which James alludes to, especially among scientists.

Look at the unfortunate phenomenon, certainly not contemporary with this book, but noted as far back to the works of Spargo of genuinely progressive people overlooking the Soviet Union's flaws, because they wanted to believe in its success. How does a Pulitzer prize winning journalist like Walter Duranty manage to overlook the Ukranian famine?

James also notes that in the case of most people, the truths which they accept are not truths that they discover themselves, but take from sources that they trust. “Not insight, but the prestige of the opinions, is what makes the spark shoot from them and light up our sleeping magazines of faith.”

Our reasons... in nine hundred and ninety nine cases out of every thousand of us, if it can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by some one else. Our faith is faith in someone else's faith and in the greatest matters this is most the case. Our belief in truth itself

We are prone to believe what is useful to us, James claims, though he never defines utility, and indeed it will vary depending on the individual. In an amusing case James cites “a leading biologist, now dead, once said to me, that even if such a thing were true [telepathy] scientists ought to band together to keep it suppressed and concealed. It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pursuits.”

This was very amusing, as I'm sure there are many scientists who would be fascinated by the existence of telepathy. Feynman makes such a claim in “The Meaning of it All”, even proposing a hypothetical experiment to discover the extent of a telepathic individual's capability, and in fact, James admits that if a scientist were to be convinced that telepathy would be useful and not dangerous to his career, he would eagerly accept it.

I think a better example to prove the nature of our stubborn biases would be our cherished political ideas. Imagine if you could prove that things are getting worse. That would actually be very popular as it's a political maxim that you never let a crisis go to waste. Consider all the sycophants that gathered around the maelstrom of the First World War in the hopes of building a new world order upon the ashes. George Herron even spoke of a feared, early compromise peace in gloomy terms as the beginning of “a reign of spiritual death.”

If you could prove that the world was getting worse, and that there was nothing that could be done, now that would be an unpopular idea. The intellectuals would have no use for it, it's a state of affairs, that gives them no place in society, a fate worse than death.

James divides epistemologies into two categories: empiricism and absolutism. The former is always agnostic in the wait for more evidence, the latter believes in certain cases where the intellect assents without any doubt. I have to say that I side with the latter, but rather than sacrifice objective truth I sacrifice the observer. Some people will be certain, but they will be wrong, others will be certain and be right, and its true that we have no supreme arbiter on Earth to vindicate the right, but what James is doing with pragmatism is making every individual their own valid arbiter.

He also notes, correctly, that people disagree on practically everything. “We find no proposition ever regarded by any one as evidently certain that has not been either been called a falsehood or at least had its truth sincerely questioned by some one else. The transcending of the axioms of geometry, not in play but in earnest, by certain of our contemporaries (Zollner and Charles H. Hinton) and the rejection of the whole Aristotelian logic by the Hegelians, are striking instances in point.”

Earlier he noted that “our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must decide an option between propositions whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances. Do not decide, but leave the question open, is itself a apassional decision just like deciding yes or no and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.” At what point do we cross from uncertainty to certainty? Going with a certain option, or even remaining unconvinced, is described as an act of the will, and I don't consider that illegitimate at all.

An important consideration, James notes is which ideas actually translate to action if we believe in them? “What difference, indeed does it make to most of us whether we have or have not a theory of the Rontgen rays, whether we believe or not in mind-stuff, or have a conviction about the causality of conscious states?”

He notes that sometimes the belief precedes the action. Train robberies happen because the armed thieves have the advantage of certainty of action amongst themselves. If one passenger attempted to fight, where's the guarantee that everyone else will rise up? They are likelier to sit still and accept their loss in property rather than their lives, but what if everyone always rose up in unison? Then there would never be any train robberies (much like today there will never be another mid air plane hijacking where the hijackers take over the cockpit). Yet the conviction had to arise before the consequence.

Belief in the efficacy of medicine has been proven to influence its success, and I think many people continue to believe in far fetched political reforms, in the hopes that they will work if the general population can be convinced that they will work. In both cases, belief precedes the action.

Take the example of science. It will not work unless you approach it with some preconceived notions, ranging from the existence of a world independent of us, the orderly nature and uniformity of that world, the know-ability of that world, and the adequacy of our senses and language to describe the world. I certainly don't consider any of those beliefs irrational, but how does one arrive at them in the first place? Do not be surprised by doubters of any one of them.

James actually lashes out against excessive agnosticism. “A rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule.” I agree with this. I concede that we deal with probability in most of the ideas that are presented before us, but to reject in certain to accept a certain truth simply because it is not a priori one hundred percent certain, is irrational.

[John Martindale · Rating 5 out of 5]

James has this incredible knack of eloquently expressing, those things that were floating somewhere in the recesses of my mind, that I never managed to formulate into words. When he does this I feel so understood, it is quite exciting.

In his essay "The Will to believe"

William James starts with the observation that certain notions are initially dead to us, we are unable to even see them as possibilities. If someone ask me to believe in the god Zeus, I can't just “will” to do so. I am completely dead to this option. Yet if I was born in Greece 200BC, belief in Zeus would have been a live option to me, at this time in history the faith of others would likely be enough of a reason for me to believe. It is interesting that missionaries of certain religions who go to other cultures completely different from their own, have to somehow make something foreign, an option that is initially dead to them, become a live option, this is quite a hurdle to surmount.

THE BELIEF AND THE WILL
Its interesting to think, that we actually believe what we do because we think it's true. Our will doesn't often come into play here, except after the fact, as we will to find more arguments to back it up. If we are convinced that something is true, we don't then “Choose” to believe it, no, we notice that we simply believe it true. So indeed, it seems absurd to say our opinions and beliefs are modifiable by the will. Can I just decide that Abraham Lincoln, never existed by mere strength of the will? It doesn't seem likely. I would need to find some Lincoln Myth'ers, read some conspiracy theorist who a weave a tale of how we've been hoodwinked all along. I need to look for “evidence” that can make me feel justified in the belief that seems highly unlikely. I would need some “good reason' to go on such a quest to begin with, maybe a friend who seems reasonable and yet holds such an odd belief.

SCIENTIFIC FEVER: THE FEAR OF THE SUBJECTIVE
Understandably many scientist who have devoted themselves to the glorious search for laws and verifiable facts, strongly react to sentimentalist who are influenced by dreams, visions, and ancient scriptures. Many a scientist are repulsed by such nonsense and subjectivism. Having caught the scientific fever however, they often swing hard to the other extreme, thinking it is evil to believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence. They don't realize that according to what they call sufficient evidence, they don't have sufficient evidence for that very belief and a multitude of other beliefs they hold dear.

THE SHALLOW SOIL IN WHICH OUR BELEIFS ARE PLANTED
It greatly pleased me that James listed many things the majority of us westerners assume true, and then pointed out how we really hold to many of these with little inner clearness and without much intellectual grounding. For many of our beliefs, we are satisfied with just one or two little arguments in their favor. This is enough to keep us feeling secure, though a critic has written a tome against what we hold as true. James wrote “Our faith is faith in some one else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case. Our belief in truth itself, for instance, that there is a truth, and that our minds and it are made for each other,—what is it but a passionate affirmation of desire, in which our social system backs us up?”We want there to be such thing as truth and we are willing to stake our lives upon this assumption.

PRAGMATIC BASIS FOR WHAT WE EVEN CONSIDER AN OPTION
James points out that we disbelieve facts and theories for which we have no us. Scientist will not even consider the evidences for certain theories, and if those theories were shown to be true, they'd find it their duty to band together with out scientist to suppress and conceal it. For they can't allow anything to undermine the uniformity of Nature, which is the foundation on which they do science. But if for some reason the scientist did think the theory posed such a threat, but instead could fit quite comfortably, he might not only look at the evidence, but find it good enough.

I like this quote “This very law which the logicians would impose upon us...is based on nothing but their own natural wish to exclude all elements for which they, in their professional quality of logicians, can find no use.”

JAMES RELECTION ON PASCALS WAGER
James insightfully noticed that unless there is some pre-existing tendency to believe catholic religious practices, Pascal's wager, is not a living option us. James pointed out “Certainly no Turk ever took to masses and holy water on its account”
But later James mentioned that once we already believe in Mass and holy water, something like Pascal's wager seals the deal. It is the clincher, it makes our belief complete.

THE SKEPTICS IRRATIONAL RULE
James finishes the essay, reflecting upon how the scientist who pretend to believe nothing unless their is proof and remain agnostic towards everything else, embrace a rule for thinking that absolutely prevents them from acknowledging certain kinds of truth. This James thinks is a irrational rule and I must agree. By insisting upon being agnostic, they are actually making a choice against matters that are of serious importance and they're also deluding themselves, for one can't live ones life in our world, without regularly trusting others and what they're told, they can't always wait for sufficient evidence and function in our world at the same time.
Now, finally, it is a misunderstanding of scientist to claim "Faith is when you believe something that you know ain't true," faith/belief can only consider those things that are "live" options. Living options don't seem absurdities to the mind, it's just some living options can't be absolutely resolved through the Skeptics rule for truth. Consider, one being attracted to a girl, he can't get proof that she is the "one", but to hold out for sufficient evidence is to make the choice against her, for such concrete facts can't be had.

[Stevewilliams27 · Rating 4 out of 5]

For some reason, I really dove into this one. Not an easy read, those 19th century peeps always write so formally. Spend the time unpacking the argument in the Will to Believe, and you will find value and reason to question the foundation of your opinions.

[Kirsten · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot of the essay just kinda went through one ear and out the other. Didn’t really register much of what James was talking about, but his essay still seems alright

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pros: William James is one of my favorite writers and philosophers. He is always clear and to the point, yet with plenty of examples and profound thoughts. Will to Believe is mostly a treasure-trove of quotable nuggets for me. I could talk about how these essays laid a foundation for the first American philosophy - Pragmatism - or about how James' work can bring hope to anyone who chooses to believe (much like his lectures in book form "Varieties of Religious Experience"), but I have to say I re-read these essays last winter just because I am a fanboy.

Cons: Some of James' more subjective arguments can be irksome to those of us who are trying to survive throught the end of analytical philosophy.

Overall: Even if you don't like Philosophy, Psychology, History, or Literature - I still recommend this book to you. Take your medicine.

[Marcus Vinicius · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tolerância e Pragmatismo
Trata-se de um ensaio cujo objetivo é justificar a fé. Reflexão feita por um empirista que adota o conceito pragmatista de verdade. A justificação que esboça nos remete à experiência. Sua adoção nos conduz à tolerância. Dogmatistas ficarão tristes ao ler esse livrinho.

[Senlin Du · Rating 5 out of 5]

Der amerikanische Pragmatismus nach William James besagt, dass sich die Wahrheit der Theorie nach all den Versuchen und Irrtümern letztlich in dem Zustand des Guten in der Praxis bestätigt, der es einen ermöglicht, sein Leben gut zu gestalten. Das Gute(z. B. ein „gutes“, „positives“ Leben, wird nach Calvins Theologie so definiert, dass man von der Gnade befähigt wird, das Gesetz zu befolgen. Das Gesetz ist eine Sammlung von ethischen Regeln, die von oben nach unten gegeben werden.) manifestiert sich in der Ausführung einer Theorie durch eine Person. So wird der Wahrheitswert einer Theorie bestätigt. Und dieser Wahrheitswert bestätigt eine Wahrheit, die seit langem im menschlichen Herzen schlummert (sie wird in dem Moment „Wahrheit“ genannt, in dem sie bestätigt wird), und sie bestätigt sich selbst, indem sie die menschlichen Gefühle weckt. Wahrheitswerte sind immer für diese Person selbst gültig und können anderen nicht aufgezwungen werden. Auch andere brauchen diesen Prozess der Übung, um diese „Wahrheit“ zu finden. Diese „Wahrheit“ ist ein Ziel, dem sich jeder Mensch in seinem eigenen Leben zu nähern versucht, und Religion ist der Ausdruck dieses Annäherungsprozesses. Jeder Mensch ist anders, und deshalb soll auch jede Religion anders sein. Für James ist die Wahrheit aber objektiv, denn die Objektivität der Wahrheit zeigt sich selbst durch und in der menschlichen Praxis(Damit knüpft die Philosophie von James an die biblische Tradition an), und jeder spürt durch die gute Praxis ein Teil der Wahrheit.

Im Vergleich dazu vertraten Kierkegaard und Nietzsche die Ansicht, dass eine subjektive, willkürliche „Wahl“, die der Mensch durch seine Leidenschaften oder seinen Willen trifft, die Wahrheit selbst eröffnen kann, und dass das, was sie „Wahl“ nennen, eher eine formale Bedingung ist, die die Wahrheit zu dem macht, was sie ist. Die menschliche Subjektivität schafft diese Wahrheit in diesem Prozess. Die kontinentale Tradition stützt sich stark auf die deduktive Logik, das Aussagesystem und die Verehrung dieses Systems durch das Leben. Kierkegaard und Nietzsche haben die Legitimität dieses Systems in Frage gestellt und das Individuum ermächtigt, eigene Gesetze zu geben(anstatt gesellschaftlich vorgegebene ethische Inhalte durch Subjektivität anzuerkennen, wie es Kant noch tut). Beide Schulen knüpfen an die mittelalterliche Tradition der franziskanischen Philosophie an. Während Kierkegaard und Nietzsche die Betonung des menschlichen Willens von Scotus´ Lehre übernommen haben, stand William James der Betonung des Willens Gottes von Scotus´ Lehre näher. Er hat viel Psychologie studiert. Meine Überlegung ist, dass, da in der Theologie jeder Mensch von Gott dazu vorherbestimmt ist, so zu sein, wie er ist, das Studium der Psychologie das Studium des emotionalen Inhalts eines jeden Menschen ist, wie er von Gott gegeben wurde.

[Clive Wheeler · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting and thoughtful exposition of his ideas on what truth is, definitions of Pragmatism, and his thoughts on Humanism.

Unfortunately the copy I read, published by Anodos Books, was not very well edited or proof-read so there were a number of typographical errors in a book where the right word in the right place was essential. Additionally, as someone who is not fluent in many languages I would have preferred a translation to English of the German and French used in the book, as well as some help with the, probably, archaic use of Latin phrases.

As a Lay person who had never read any of William James' work before I found his writing cumbersome in places and did get irritated with his persistent need in these articles to attack his critics for what he seemed to see as a wilful desire not to understand his theory. I suspect his notion of truth having a relationship with the knower of truth and their relationship with the reality that supports the truth known is much easier to understand and seems less radical now than it was at the time he wrote it.

I am glad I read the book but I would not recommend it to anyone as I feel there are probably better books out there on this subject and indeed probably better ones by Mr. James himself.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great exposition on “live hypotheses,” the options we are even willing to consider believing, and how we often exclude them from the start. He deals with science’s attack on faith, the choice between trying to be right and trying not to be wrong, and how the idea that suspending judgment is the wisest course of action is only true until their is a forced decision like our somewhat binary one of propositional faith

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you never take a leap of faith, then you'll be safe from being "duped" by an unscrupulous spiritual leader. But you're also closing yourself off from ever being "right" about the truth of reality (if it requires taking such a leap. But it's impossible to know if you need to take the leap until you DO take the leap).

[Priscilla Reiss · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love the curation of this collection or essays by William James. It opens perfectly and ends incredibly. I picked up this book specially to read “The Will to Believe”, James’ most famous work, but there were other essays that sparked thought and intrigue. Reading from cover to cover was challenging but well worth the effort.

[Rick Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I took this book to understand American Pragmatic school of thought. The first two chapters are worth reading to understand about belief, and willingness to believe. I shall read more on American Pragmatic school later on.

Deus Vult
Gottfried

[Heather Hoyt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved the essay Will to Believe, as well as more essays in the book. The ones toward the end were not quite as interesting.

William James makes a compelling case for faith, and his concepts of things like live options are very useful.

[David Haws · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this for the first time maybe 30 years ago, and it's remarkable how relevant James is after well more than a century. I was only going to read the lead essay, but ended up reading the whole thing. His essay trying out-Hegel Hegal was the only clinker.

[Alexandria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure why the page number is so large on this entry; I read the 20~ page essay... Anyway it was OK.

[Jess · Rating 3 out of 5]

literally no positive or negative thoughts about it, mid

[Sandy · Rating 1 out of 5]

.

[Isabella Milojevic]

I HATE PHILOSOPHY

[Bellatuscana Bellatuscana · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting things to think about but not my cup of tea.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of lectures from the eminent pragmatist. In the title lecture he does Pascal one better by pointing out that (a) if the alternative to non-belief is a gaping chasm, then why not believe; and then (b) perhaps it’s the believing that makes it so. Pretty cool in its day. Over the years this approach has been twisted over so many iterations of desire-filled praying for the universe to rain down prosperity on you that it now looks suspect, but in the scar-filled Gilded Age of post war-of-succession America, I bet it seemed kinda cool. Also, he has a great way with words.

[Viktoria Chipova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review: 5/5 ⭐️
The Will to Believe – William James

In this foundational text of American pragmatism, William James delivers a powerful and enduring defense of faith, choice, and the legitimacy of belief in matters where evidence alone cannot compel us. The Will to Believe is more than a philosophical essay — it’s a profound meditation on the right to believe when faced with genuine, momentous, and forced options.

James argues that in areas like religion or moral commitment, suspending judgment can be as much a choice — and a risk — as believing. He challenges the idea that withholding belief is always the most rational path, especially when that suspension can mean missing out on potentially life-altering truths. His writing is elegant, passionate, and deeply human, grounded in psychological insight and philosophical generosity.

This essay is not just about religion — it’s about how we live with uncertainty, how we make decisions under pressure, and how belief functions in the total economy of human life. James defends the dignity of the believing soul without dismissing reason, making this one of the most balanced and accessible defenses of faith in modern philosophy.

In summary:
A bold, compassionate, and intellectually rigorous argument for the right to believe. James masterfully bridges reason and faith, doubt and commitment. A timeless philosophical gem. 5/5.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

I confess I only read two thirds of this. I did get a lot out of the parts I read, however, the parts that were not impenetrable to me.

[Tinquerbelle]

Wolff, Robert Paul
Ten Great Works of Philosophy

In compilation only.

[Mark Mills · Rating 5 out of 5]

A talent for writing seems to run in the James family. He wonderfully captures the blend of reason and sentiment that makes up faith.

[Mz · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://bookpress.gr/kritikes/idees/2...