post 4

Dan Flood

(a) The main Pragmatist tenet that I took away from James’ Lecture V was his espousal of the necessity for radical empiricism as a means of engaging the world. His assertion is that everyday experience and living cannot be evaluated objectively and scientifically without also accounting for the reasoning and experiences of the observer. He does not believe that you can realistically distinguish between the mind of the observer and the nature it observes. He purports these beliefs as he explains his conceptions of One Space and One Time. The definite bearings and distinctions of a time dated and space mapped world, do eventually blend together. It is in that blurring that nature cannot be separated out, and as a result we are left having to incorporate experience into the formation of truth. James asserts, that no more do we physically understand our spatial relation to a city in China, than do we as children draw distinctions in time. In fact he suggests that “in reality [he} utterly fail[s] to feel the facts which the map symbolizes. The directions and distances are vague, confused and mixed” (Lecture V, 4). Thus, the cosmic space and cosmic time we have introduced as a way to scientifically organize our lives do not hinder or disrupt the continuity that both maintain in our foundations of growth. Further, James contends “our forefathers have from time immemorial unified and straightened the discontinuity of their immediate experiences, and put themselves into an equilibrium with the surface of nature so satisfactory for ordinary practical purposes that it certainly would have lasted forever” (Lecture V, 6). Hence, it is impossible to separate out our experiences as we critically reason. There is in fact only one time and one space where everything that ever was and ever will be must overlap. One should not distinguish between what others would consider time periods, but should rather embrace the intertwining strands as truth is built up out of common sense and knowledge is grown en masse.

(b) Isn’t there a dangerous relativity to defining truth as an early common sense based coherence theory? Won’t that in essence give license to the masses, to morally reason, or choose not to, as they see fit?

(c) I find what James has to say about truth to be remarkable especially when it is considered in the context of some of the other Pragmatists we have studied. The formation of truth provided by Peirce, one where truth does not necessarily correspond to reality but rather coheres to the beliefs of those around you, appears somewhat more functional than that which was provided by James. Although James believes that truth is relative to the use of the believer, he claims, “new truths thus are resultants of new experiences and of old truths combined and mutually modifying one another” (Lecture V, 1). Which to me brings about the question of absolute truth. How could there be any absolute truths if truth itself is constantly gaining with experience after experience. I wonder if he actually means that the way in which we see and experience the world helps us to grow and develop a better understanding of that absolute universal truth. James provides us with a couple of analogous examples, which as it turns out, I find to be quite convincing. Firstly, he suggests that in remodeling a house, save for tearing down the very foundation, even if every wall is repainted, the house redecorated, and reconfigured, the very heart of the building, namely its foundation and original framing, remains. Similarly, the tastes and smells left in an old whiskey, or medicine bottle, will likely remain even after being washed out and refilled time and again. When he presupposes that knowledge, and that specifically of truth, grows out of the old and into the new conceptions. Small as it may seem, it seems important nonetheless that the old truths and old knowledge going all the way back to the beginning of man, must in some way influence today’s truth. Truth is perhaps a continuity of growth of knowledge. Given the external nature of the “truthing” process for James as described above, it seems likely that he would starkly disagree with the thoughts of Descartes, whose truths emanate from a presupposition of skepticism and doubt that would in turn eliminate much of the growing truth asserted by James. At this stage, Pragmatism feels very functional and simpler as far as philosophies go, and by saying that I consider it to be ore accessible and helpful as a means of understanding things. It is in many cases wildly more applicable then others that came before and some that came after it. However, in its present form, it seems to dissuade and remove all contradictions. From a negative perspective, I am left to wonder how we can determine the difference between the principles that govern our everyday living and the philosophically insightful reasoning purported by the pragmatists

(Apologies ... posting from off campus when the internet is cut out by the storms is hard than first imagined! Unfortunately, it was left until my arrival here this morning to be uploaded.)