What do you think?
Rate this book
The Will to Believe, Human Immortality and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy
The work of William James contributed greatly to the burgeoning fields of psychology, particularly in the areas of education, religion, mysticism and pragmatism. The brother of novelist Henry James and of diarist Alice James, William wrote several powerful essays expressing his ideas on the pragmatic theory of truth, sentience, and human beings' right to believe. In "The Will to Believe", James suggests that what a person holds to be true or attainable may exist through that person's belief in them, regardless of a lack of physical evidence. In a sense, he advocates the theory of self-fulfilling prophesies. "Human Immortality" was a speech delivered during the annual Ingersoll Lectureship, given in memory of George Goldthwait Ingersoll, in 1897 at Harvard University. These works are a prime example of the powerful influence William James has had on modern psychology, and are still recognized today for their brilliance and revolutionary impacts on the field.
412 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1897
63 people are currently reading
2,248 people want to read
About the author
William James
355 books1,286 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 - 30 of 38 reviews
April 30, 2008
A difference that does not make a difference does not make a difference...the squirrel said as he dashed around the tree.
June 24, 2024
William James And Religion
Throughout his writings as a psychologist and philosopher, William James was preoccupied with questions of religion. Put simply, James wrestled with questions about whether Darwin's theory of evolution and mechanistic, physiologically -based psychology (which he himself had done much to develop in his "Principles of Psychology) were inconsistent with a spiritual view of life. These questions came to the fore for James in the mid-1890s. In 1896, James wrote to a friend: "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 under review is a reasonably-priced edition of two works that James edited or wrote contemporaneously with the letter quoted above. In these works, James delved into religious questions and considered the consistency of a spiritual approach to life with a scientific outlook. The first "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 second book, "Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine" consists of the text James delivered as the Ingersoll Lecture on Human Immortality at Harvard in 1897. James subsequently published this lecture as a short book in 1898. Both "The Will to Believe" and "Human Immortality" predate James's masterpiece in the study of religion, "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (1902).
The essays in "The Will to Believe" 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." 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 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 possiblity 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.
As its title suggests, the lecture on "Human Immortality" is more narrowly focused than "The Will to Believe", but its approach is much the same. James does not try to prove the existence or define the nature of an afterlife. He claims instead that his goal is simply to remove to alleged obstacles to a belief in immortality.
The larger part of the essay is devoted to the first obstacle which is based upon physiology and the functional nature of the mind. If the mind is simply a function of electrical-chemical reactions in the "gray matter" of the brain, what reason is there, James asks, for thinking that the mind survives the body. James's answer is based in part upon his reading of the German scientist and philosopher Gustav Fechner, whose work would also play an important role in James's later book, "A Pluralistic Universe." James distinguishes considering mind as a productive function of the brain from considering mind as a transmissive function. In both cases, thoughts in our everyday world are dependent upon neurology. But in the latter case, the universe may be viewed as itself spiritual in character, and that this character of the universe is transmitted through the brain to the individual person during life, and the character of the individual returns as part of this spirit upon death. I found this position intriguing because it seems to me to show that James' thought was greatly influenced by the pantheism or absolute idealism that he generally criticized severely in his writing. James is aware of this objection and tries to distinguish his thought from pantheism or idealism. I am not sure how well he succeeds. "Human Immortality" is a provocative essay, and it shows to me the seams of James' thinking between his commitment to pluralism and science on the one hand and spirituality on the other hand.
The other supposed objection to immortality that James considers is likewise based upon science. James argues that evolution has shown that human beings have developed from earlier forms of life, including earlier forms of humans. He also points to an expanded knowledge of the variety of human life and culture that, he claims, was unknown in biblical or medieval times. According to James, some critics might object to the teaching of human immortality because it would necessarily apply to too large a group. James replies to this alleged objection: "God, we can then say, has so inexhaustible a capacity for love that his call and need is for a literally endless accumulation of created lives. he can never faint or grow weary, as we should, under the increasing supply. His scale is infinite in all things. His sympathy can never know satiety or glut." James thus democraticizes and individualizes the possibility of heaven. His approach here is similar to the approach he takes in his famous essay "On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings".
The two works in this book tie together James's 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. These works require careful reading. This is an excellent work with which to begin a reading of William James.
Robin Friedman
Throughout his writings as a psychologist and philosopher, William James was preoccupied with questions of religion. Put simply, James wrestled with questions about whether Darwin's theory of evolution and mechanistic, physiologically -based psychology (which he himself had done much to develop in his "Principles of Psychology) were inconsistent with a spiritual view of life. These questions came to the fore for James in the mid-1890s. In 1896, James wrote to a friend: "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 under review is a reasonably-priced edition of two works that James edited or wrote contemporaneously with the letter quoted above. In these works, James delved into religious questions and considered the consistency of a spiritual approach to life with a scientific outlook. The first "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 second book, "Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine" consists of the text James delivered as the Ingersoll Lecture on Human Immortality at Harvard in 1897. James subsequently published this lecture as a short book in 1898. Both "The Will to Believe" and "Human Immortality" predate James's masterpiece in the study of religion, "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (1902).
The essays in "The Will to Believe" 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." 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 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 possiblity 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.
As its title suggests, the lecture on "Human Immortality" is more narrowly focused than "The Will to Believe", but its approach is much the same. James does not try to prove the existence or define the nature of an afterlife. He claims instead that his goal is simply to remove to alleged obstacles to a belief in immortality.
The larger part of the essay is devoted to the first obstacle which is based upon physiology and the functional nature of the mind. If the mind is simply a function of electrical-chemical reactions in the "gray matter" of the brain, what reason is there, James asks, for thinking that the mind survives the body. James's answer is based in part upon his reading of the German scientist and philosopher Gustav Fechner, whose work would also play an important role in James's later book, "A Pluralistic Universe." James distinguishes considering mind as a productive function of the brain from considering mind as a transmissive function. In both cases, thoughts in our everyday world are dependent upon neurology. But in the latter case, the universe may be viewed as itself spiritual in character, and that this character of the universe is transmitted through the brain to the individual person during life, and the character of the individual returns as part of this spirit upon death. I found this position intriguing because it seems to me to show that James' thought was greatly influenced by the pantheism or absolute idealism that he generally criticized severely in his writing. James is aware of this objection and tries to distinguish his thought from pantheism or idealism. I am not sure how well he succeeds. "Human Immortality" is a provocative essay, and it shows to me the seams of James' thinking between his commitment to pluralism and science on the one hand and spirituality on the other hand.
The other supposed objection to immortality that James considers is likewise based upon science. James argues that evolution has shown that human beings have developed from earlier forms of life, including earlier forms of humans. He also points to an expanded knowledge of the variety of human life and culture that, he claims, was unknown in biblical or medieval times. According to James, some critics might object to the teaching of human immortality because it would necessarily apply to too large a group. James replies to this alleged objection: "God, we can then say, has so inexhaustible a capacity for love that his call and need is for a literally endless accumulation of created lives. he can never faint or grow weary, as we should, under the increasing supply. His scale is infinite in all things. His sympathy can never know satiety or glut." James thus democraticizes and individualizes the possibility of heaven. His approach here is similar to the approach he takes in his famous essay "On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings".
The two works in this book tie together James's 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. These works require careful reading. This is an excellent work with which to begin a reading of William James.
Robin Friedman
March 16, 2009
I really loved this essay the first time I read it, but now I see several problems with the epistemology he sets forth. So did he, as he refined it with time and truly shows it in both The Varieties of Religious Experience, and Pragmatism. The Will to Believe still holds a special place in my heart though, and still makes many valid points. A perfect introduction for any irreligious person seeking to understand what's going inside the head of a religious person, quickly followed by the Varieties. Quite brilliant.
January 7, 2019
This book compiles James' attempts to grapple with the argument that the university ought to be secular. It is a formidable book from one of the most formidable modernists in history. However, the book is best read through a deconstructive lens. As James himself observes, his arguments are intended for a specific audience, but as he does not observe, that audience is an extremely powerful one. He discusses with self-awareness what the American university is and ought to be, offering suitably pragmatic suggestions, but he does not discuss the function of the secular university within society at large, except for some interesting asides. On page 9, he refers sarcastically to "the doctrine of the immortal Monroe" as one of the unquestioned beliefs underpinning the behavior of the American scholar; two years after he gave this speech, he would co-found the American Anti-Imperialist League with his brother Henry.
James was constantly on the lookout for unknown quantities influencing his reasoning, which is what led him into psychical research, as well as to the little-known mystics who he makes reference to here and there in this book. His invocation of the Scholastics, and careful correction of Descartes, is like a prelude to René Guénon. But what he does not question is just as revealing as what he does question. He is concerned with the epistemology of transcendent experience, and goes looking for it in nitrous oxide. He is not concerned with how everyday religious behavior, minus any chemical intervention, affects the body, as the spirit of modernist philosophy has denied this to him. Similarly, he is concerned with how the great metaphysical walls surrounding Harvard might be transgressed, but he is not concerned with how the institution of the university acts on bodies; this question was simply not being raised by anyone around him, and would not be taken up in earnest until the work of Edward Said, Pierre Bourdieu, and Wael Hallaq appeared decades later.
Interesting as the penetrating work of a critical mind, but not so much as a lesson in method.
James was constantly on the lookout for unknown quantities influencing his reasoning, which is what led him into psychical research, as well as to the little-known mystics who he makes reference to here and there in this book. His invocation of the Scholastics, and careful correction of Descartes, is like a prelude to René Guénon. But what he does not question is just as revealing as what he does question. He is concerned with the epistemology of transcendent experience, and goes looking for it in nitrous oxide. He is not concerned with how everyday religious behavior, minus any chemical intervention, affects the body, as the spirit of modernist philosophy has denied this to him. Similarly, he is concerned with how the great metaphysical walls surrounding Harvard might be transgressed, but he is not concerned with how the institution of the university acts on bodies; this question was simply not being raised by anyone around him, and would not be taken up in earnest until the work of Edward Said, Pierre Bourdieu, and Wael Hallaq appeared decades later.
Interesting as the penetrating work of a critical mind, but not so much as a lesson in method.
August 18, 2020
îmi este greu să cuprind dimensiunea ideilor filosofice ale lui James într-un curent de gândire, dar pot susține că ideile sale reprezintă primul germene de răzvrătire împotriva autorității acestora (indiferent care sunt).
November 23, 2016
This collection contains two essays of keen interest to this reader: "The Will to Believe", "Is Life worth Living", while the other essays may be tabled for future read.
The Will to Believe sets up the question of belief first in the question of what kind of question that faith asks. As a "hypothesis" worthy of discussion in the question of faith, James set up the following way (1) liveness in relation to the individual thinker, and such "liveness" is directly proportion to his willingness to act, (2) hence, "forced" instead of avoidable (3), "momentous" instead of trivial. Given the option of being religious or not, the option for a particular person must be living-forced-momentous. Hence, skepticism in perpetuity is not a viable cause of action -- given the question's "living-forced-momentous" nature that would have overwhelmed our psychological energy. Here the two true options is: belief or non-belief.
Subsequently, the question of "seeking truth" versus "avoiding error" becomes the primary concerns for the thinker. Clearly James thought the former far more important: "He who refuses to embrace a unique opportunities loses the prize as surely as if he tried and failed". This reminds me of Pascal's Wager, but James' point is quite different. James said "unless there be some pre-existing tendency to believe in masses and holy water, the option offered to the will by Pascal is not living option". What is the difference? The difference lies in Pascal's target (saved vs. damned), versus James' psychological argument on the process, the praxis, the actual journey in each path would confirm its destination. James' choosing of "seeking truth" must confront William Clifford's un-ethical argument against belief without evidences, which he dispatched with decisive alacrity.
Now the point is that belief or no-belief is not an impassion ate data-gathering kind of query. At the core of belief is the moral questioning. “A moral question is a question not of what sensibly exists, but of what is good, or would be good if it did exists.” Here, scientific data-gathering is out of its place. In this taking-risk (such as the errors and dupery), “his faith acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification.” This returns to James as a philosophic-psychologist, where the truth claims in the psychological realm is quite differently played out that inert materials. Here we and the universe is no longer “I - It”, but “I -Thou”, a relationship instead of stark indifference. The ending passage quoted from Fitz James Stephens is glorious: “..We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one.What must we do? 'Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes.... If death ends all, we cannot meet death better."
This also answered the question of “Is Life Worth Living” — “if death ends all, we cannot meet death better” by exercising our Will to Belief.
The Will to Believe sets up the question of belief first in the question of what kind of question that faith asks. As a "hypothesis" worthy of discussion in the question of faith, James set up the following way (1) liveness in relation to the individual thinker, and such "liveness" is directly proportion to his willingness to act, (2) hence, "forced" instead of avoidable (3), "momentous" instead of trivial. Given the option of being religious or not, the option for a particular person must be living-forced-momentous. Hence, skepticism in perpetuity is not a viable cause of action -- given the question's "living-forced-momentous" nature that would have overwhelmed our psychological energy. Here the two true options is: belief or non-belief.
Subsequently, the question of "seeking truth" versus "avoiding error" becomes the primary concerns for the thinker. Clearly James thought the former far more important: "He who refuses to embrace a unique opportunities loses the prize as surely as if he tried and failed". This reminds me of Pascal's Wager, but James' point is quite different. James said "unless there be some pre-existing tendency to believe in masses and holy water, the option offered to the will by Pascal is not living option". What is the difference? The difference lies in Pascal's target (saved vs. damned), versus James' psychological argument on the process, the praxis, the actual journey in each path would confirm its destination. James' choosing of "seeking truth" must confront William Clifford's un-ethical argument against belief without evidences, which he dispatched with decisive alacrity.
Now the point is that belief or no-belief is not an impassion ate data-gathering kind of query. At the core of belief is the moral questioning. “A moral question is a question not of what sensibly exists, but of what is good, or would be good if it did exists.” Here, scientific data-gathering is out of its place. In this taking-risk (such as the errors and dupery), “his faith acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification.” This returns to James as a philosophic-psychologist, where the truth claims in the psychological realm is quite differently played out that inert materials. Here we and the universe is no longer “I - It”, but “I -Thou”, a relationship instead of stark indifference. The ending passage quoted from Fitz James Stephens is glorious: “..We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one.What must we do? 'Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes.... If death ends all, we cannot meet death better."
This also answered the question of “Is Life Worth Living” — “if death ends all, we cannot meet death better” by exercising our Will to Belief.
September 25, 2019
Note that my edition was the Dover Edition as opposed to the one pictured here.
The Will to Believe is an anthology of essays based on lectures the 19th century psychologist gave to associations like the YMCA, Harvard Philosophical Club, Unitarian Ministers Institute, Harvard Divinity Students, Yale Philosophical Club, and The Harvard Natural History Society, as well as a rejected article from Atlantic Monthly and published articles from Mind and Scribner’s magazines. Another book, originally published separately and based on the C. H. Ingersoll Lectureship, Human Immortality, has also been bound into this volume. That James, philosophically a monist who subscribed to what he called a “radical empiricism” and defined as empirical in the sense of treating even its most assured positions as hypotheses to be challenged by future discovery (p. vii) and radical in the sense of his “hypothesis” of monism being a counterpoint to the popular agnosticism, positivism, or scientific naturalism of his day (p. viii). In this, it seems sure that James was influenced by the famous American pragmatist, C. S. Peirce, to whom the original anthology was dedicated.
In the eponymous first essay, James warns about the uncertainty of knowing truth (p. 16), sounding almost post-modern. And, though he espouses empiricism, he recognizes that humanity goes about investigation because of a nervousness that we have not grasped what is there to be discovered. But, “Science has organized this nervousness into a regular technique, her so-called method of verification, and she has fallen so deeply in love with the method that one may say she has ceased to care for truth by itself at all.” (p. 21) There was even a terrific quotation that I use in my class about social understanding: “A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs.” (p. 24) It’s a concept that applies to virtual communities as well as material communities even though it was penned a century before even news groups existed on the early Internet. Essentially, “The freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider.” (p. 29)
Of course, James must address the determinists in order to defend his position that the ability to believe is valid. His essay, “The Dilemma of Determinism,” is a delightful riposte to such thinkers which James labels as “pessimists.” James posits, “For the only consistent way of representing a pluralism and a world whose parts may affect one another through their conduct being either good or bad is the indeterministic way.” (p. 175) Otherwise, he insists: “What interest, zest, or excitement can there be in achieving the right way, unless we are enabled to feel that the wrong way is also a possible and a natural way, -- nay, more, a menacing and an imminent way.” (p. 175) As to how free will and Providence could possibly work together (after all, the collection of essays is about belief), he goes to a similar well to which I go to as an illustration – gaming. James pictures a novice versus an expert at a chessboard. Although the expert may not know exactly what the novice is going to do, he/she knows all possible moves and knows how to counter them to go in the direction of victory. “And the victory infallibly arrives, after no matter how devious a course, in the one predestined form of check-mate to the novice’s king.” (p. 181)
Prior to reading this volume, I was aware that James greatly admired the work of C. S. Peirce, the renowned “Pragmatist” from the U.S., it was no surprise to read what James thought of “The Moral Philosopher and Moral Life.” It seems like he would fit clearly in the utilitarian (or, at least, consequentialist) camp. He writes: “…must not the guiding principle for ethical philosophy (since all demands conjointly cannot be satisfied in this poor world) be simply to satisfy at all times as many demands as we can? That act must be the best act, accordingly, which makes for the best whole; in the sense of awakening the least sum of dissatisfactions.” (p. 205)
To be honest, I almost skimmed “Great Men and Their Environment” and missed one of James’ eloquent arguments against the works of Herbert Spencer and his lesser-known disciple, Grant Allen. Whereas James takes a more organic approach to the nature vs. nurture debate, Spencer and Allen believe that greatness is established by a confluence of sociological pressures (p. 235). Indeed, James quotes from a contemporary article by Allen in which the follower of Spencer writes specifically, “’It was absolutely and unreservedly the product of the geographical Hellas, acting upon the given factor of the undifferentiated Aryan brain…a self-evident proposition that nothing whatsoever can differentiate one body of men from another, except the physical conditions in which they are set, …’” (p. 237). At one point in the debate, James asserts: “If anything is humanly certain it is that the great man’s society, properly so called, does not make him before he can remake it.” (p. 234) Rather, James’ position is that the individual has the power of initiative and origination is his hands while the social environment adapting, adopting, and at times, rejecting him creates the dynamic where society is influenced by the so-called great man (p. 232).
James minces no words in his essay on Hegel. “An evil frankly accepted loses half its sting and all its terror.” (p. 274) He very much objects to the way Hegel presents his “principle of totality” in terms of opposition/contradiction. James says that he might as well say that finitude is infinity as to present Hegel’s argument. James recognizes that there is diversity within totality, but he uses (believe it or not) the Trinity as an illustration of what he means. In totality, if different parts equal each other, they can substitute for each other (p. 285). But, you can’t substitute negation for affirmation, for example.
In his essay on “psychical research,” by which James means apparitions, prescience, visions, and other spiritual phenomena. James leaves the door to possibility slightly ajar, pointing out that when science says something absolutely cannot be without having definitive evidence, it isn’t really science. In a similar vein, the second book/pamphlet published with this volume, “Human Immortality,” takes something of the same approach. He argues from subconscious and extra-conscious states that there may be something beyond the purely physiological. He doesn’t agree that the reductionist approach to thought being a function of the brain is all there is to it. He accuses materialists of reducing thought to a function of the brain such as steam to a tea kettle (p. 13 of second volume) and suggests that the brain also has a transmissive function (as expressed in some forms of intuitive and perceptive knowledge not based on direct experience). His comparison is to that of a crossbow trigger. The trigger releases what is holding back the string and causes the bolt to fly (p. 14 of second volume). He suggests that if there is human immortality that the material brain releases the personality into a plane of greater possibility and notes: “If all determination is negation, as the philosophers say, it might well prove that the loss of some of the particular determinations which the brain imposes would not appear a matter for such absolute regret.” (p. 30 of second volume)
In The Will to Believe and Human Immortality, William James refuses to be limited by the conventions of his age. Rather, even though these volumes show their provenance in the 19th century, they are surprisingly worthwhile to read and consider some of his challenges to thinkers who may be “assumed” correct today without critical examination.
The Will to Believe is an anthology of essays based on lectures the 19th century psychologist gave to associations like the YMCA, Harvard Philosophical Club, Unitarian Ministers Institute, Harvard Divinity Students, Yale Philosophical Club, and The Harvard Natural History Society, as well as a rejected article from Atlantic Monthly and published articles from Mind and Scribner’s magazines. Another book, originally published separately and based on the C. H. Ingersoll Lectureship, Human Immortality, has also been bound into this volume. That James, philosophically a monist who subscribed to what he called a “radical empiricism” and defined as empirical in the sense of treating even its most assured positions as hypotheses to be challenged by future discovery (p. vii) and radical in the sense of his “hypothesis” of monism being a counterpoint to the popular agnosticism, positivism, or scientific naturalism of his day (p. viii). In this, it seems sure that James was influenced by the famous American pragmatist, C. S. Peirce, to whom the original anthology was dedicated.
In the eponymous first essay, James warns about the uncertainty of knowing truth (p. 16), sounding almost post-modern. And, though he espouses empiricism, he recognizes that humanity goes about investigation because of a nervousness that we have not grasped what is there to be discovered. But, “Science has organized this nervousness into a regular technique, her so-called method of verification, and she has fallen so deeply in love with the method that one may say she has ceased to care for truth by itself at all.” (p. 21) There was even a terrific quotation that I use in my class about social understanding: “A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs.” (p. 24) It’s a concept that applies to virtual communities as well as material communities even though it was penned a century before even news groups existed on the early Internet. Essentially, “The freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider.” (p. 29)
Of course, James must address the determinists in order to defend his position that the ability to believe is valid. His essay, “The Dilemma of Determinism,” is a delightful riposte to such thinkers which James labels as “pessimists.” James posits, “For the only consistent way of representing a pluralism and a world whose parts may affect one another through their conduct being either good or bad is the indeterministic way.” (p. 175) Otherwise, he insists: “What interest, zest, or excitement can there be in achieving the right way, unless we are enabled to feel that the wrong way is also a possible and a natural way, -- nay, more, a menacing and an imminent way.” (p. 175) As to how free will and Providence could possibly work together (after all, the collection of essays is about belief), he goes to a similar well to which I go to as an illustration – gaming. James pictures a novice versus an expert at a chessboard. Although the expert may not know exactly what the novice is going to do, he/she knows all possible moves and knows how to counter them to go in the direction of victory. “And the victory infallibly arrives, after no matter how devious a course, in the one predestined form of check-mate to the novice’s king.” (p. 181)
Prior to reading this volume, I was aware that James greatly admired the work of C. S. Peirce, the renowned “Pragmatist” from the U.S., it was no surprise to read what James thought of “The Moral Philosopher and Moral Life.” It seems like he would fit clearly in the utilitarian (or, at least, consequentialist) camp. He writes: “…must not the guiding principle for ethical philosophy (since all demands conjointly cannot be satisfied in this poor world) be simply to satisfy at all times as many demands as we can? That act must be the best act, accordingly, which makes for the best whole; in the sense of awakening the least sum of dissatisfactions.” (p. 205)
To be honest, I almost skimmed “Great Men and Their Environment” and missed one of James’ eloquent arguments against the works of Herbert Spencer and his lesser-known disciple, Grant Allen. Whereas James takes a more organic approach to the nature vs. nurture debate, Spencer and Allen believe that greatness is established by a confluence of sociological pressures (p. 235). Indeed, James quotes from a contemporary article by Allen in which the follower of Spencer writes specifically, “’It was absolutely and unreservedly the product of the geographical Hellas, acting upon the given factor of the undifferentiated Aryan brain…a self-evident proposition that nothing whatsoever can differentiate one body of men from another, except the physical conditions in which they are set, …’” (p. 237). At one point in the debate, James asserts: “If anything is humanly certain it is that the great man’s society, properly so called, does not make him before he can remake it.” (p. 234) Rather, James’ position is that the individual has the power of initiative and origination is his hands while the social environment adapting, adopting, and at times, rejecting him creates the dynamic where society is influenced by the so-called great man (p. 232).
James minces no words in his essay on Hegel. “An evil frankly accepted loses half its sting and all its terror.” (p. 274) He very much objects to the way Hegel presents his “principle of totality” in terms of opposition/contradiction. James says that he might as well say that finitude is infinity as to present Hegel’s argument. James recognizes that there is diversity within totality, but he uses (believe it or not) the Trinity as an illustration of what he means. In totality, if different parts equal each other, they can substitute for each other (p. 285). But, you can’t substitute negation for affirmation, for example.
In his essay on “psychical research,” by which James means apparitions, prescience, visions, and other spiritual phenomena. James leaves the door to possibility slightly ajar, pointing out that when science says something absolutely cannot be without having definitive evidence, it isn’t really science. In a similar vein, the second book/pamphlet published with this volume, “Human Immortality,” takes something of the same approach. He argues from subconscious and extra-conscious states that there may be something beyond the purely physiological. He doesn’t agree that the reductionist approach to thought being a function of the brain is all there is to it. He accuses materialists of reducing thought to a function of the brain such as steam to a tea kettle (p. 13 of second volume) and suggests that the brain also has a transmissive function (as expressed in some forms of intuitive and perceptive knowledge not based on direct experience). His comparison is to that of a crossbow trigger. The trigger releases what is holding back the string and causes the bolt to fly (p. 14 of second volume). He suggests that if there is human immortality that the material brain releases the personality into a plane of greater possibility and notes: “If all determination is negation, as the philosophers say, it might well prove that the loss of some of the particular determinations which the brain imposes would not appear a matter for such absolute regret.” (p. 30 of second volume)
In The Will to Believe and Human Immortality, William James refuses to be limited by the conventions of his age. Rather, even though these volumes show their provenance in the 19th century, they are surprisingly worthwhile to read and consider some of his challenges to thinkers who may be “assumed” correct today without critical examination.
December 6, 2015
Rating is just for 'The Will to Believe' - will update if I read more of the essays.
James states in his Pragmatism that abstract arguments are only important if choosing one or the other leads to a real difference. If no real difference is discernible, than there's no real difference in the arguments; more just a difference in terminology. In this essay he begins with the notion of Hypothesis. A hypothesis is "anything that may be proposed to our belief" - this is in accordance with the standard public-school notion of hypothesis. Now, a hypothesis is measured in importance by being "live or dead" - live meaning that the hypothesis is of some importance to you and your willingness to act on them.
James puts the emphasis on what we are going to do and how our choice of the options in the hypothesis affect our actions. James states, "As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use." I don't quite understand this statement; I get confused because I spend most of my days involved in bullshit debates with friends about things I probably don't really care much about - but, I suppose, the very act of thinking about a 'hypothesis' gives it a use; just not a use of very much gravity, making it less 'live' and more 'dead' - but not totally dead. The less 'live' a hypothesis is, the less time and attention I (should) give it.
James turns the notion of truth on its head. My notion of truth is correlation. "That cat is black" is true if the cat referred to is indeed of black color.
James believes that a person's non-intellectual nature influences our convictions. Our nature not only does decide between the options, but its decision is completely valid. Even opting for skepticism (or choosing not to choose an option) is a decision based on one's nature.
He further defends his thesis by stating that neither rationalism or empiricism is fully functioning. In fact, "No concrete test of what is really true has ever been agreed upon". Even science has its problems because it necessarily assumes its methods to be effective in gathering truths.
James's thoughts seem to be a nice middle-ground between skepticism, science, and religion. James dismisses the skeptics as avoiding error; preferring to believe truth at the risk of making mistakes. I guess this is why its a practical philosophy: every day we make necessary decisions between multiple options - do we choose them randomly or based on our knowledge?
James states in his Pragmatism that abstract arguments are only important if choosing one or the other leads to a real difference. If no real difference is discernible, than there's no real difference in the arguments; more just a difference in terminology. In this essay he begins with the notion of Hypothesis. A hypothesis is "anything that may be proposed to our belief" - this is in accordance with the standard public-school notion of hypothesis. Now, a hypothesis is measured in importance by being "live or dead" - live meaning that the hypothesis is of some importance to you and your willingness to act on them.
James puts the emphasis on what we are going to do and how our choice of the options in the hypothesis affect our actions. James states, "As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use." I don't quite understand this statement; I get confused because I spend most of my days involved in bullshit debates with friends about things I probably don't really care much about - but, I suppose, the very act of thinking about a 'hypothesis' gives it a use; just not a use of very much gravity, making it less 'live' and more 'dead' - but not totally dead. The less 'live' a hypothesis is, the less time and attention I (should) give it.
James turns the notion of truth on its head. My notion of truth is correlation. "That cat is black" is true if the cat referred to is indeed of black color.
James believes that a person's non-intellectual nature influences our convictions. Our nature not only does decide between the options, but its decision is completely valid. Even opting for skepticism (or choosing not to choose an option) is a decision based on one's nature.
He further defends his thesis by stating that neither rationalism or empiricism is fully functioning. In fact, "No concrete test of what is really true has ever been agreed upon". Even science has its problems because it necessarily assumes its methods to be effective in gathering truths.
James's thoughts seem to be a nice middle-ground between skepticism, science, and religion. James dismisses the skeptics as avoiding error; preferring to believe truth at the risk of making mistakes. I guess this is why its a practical philosophy: every day we make necessary decisions between multiple options - do we choose them randomly or based on our knowledge?
March 15, 2021
William James=Dope
I don't know why, but, as I was reading this book the word 'dope' kept coming to mind. William James is dope. Give him a read. In this book, his first essay, The Will To Believe is the dopest of them all and makes it worth the read for those 30-ish pages alone.
He talks about how, whether we choose to act, or choose not to act, we make a non-neutral choice. And his ideas surrounding live and dead hypotheses are very interesting. Basically, a live hypothesis "appeals as a read possibility to him to whom it is proposed." Conversely, a dead hypothesis does not read as possibly valid to the individual to whom it is proposed.
"This shows that deadness and liveness in a hypothesis are not intrinsic properties, but relations to the individual thinker. They are measured by his willingness to act irrevocably. Practically, that means belief; but there is some believing tendency wherever there is willingness to act at all."
Read this book, and you will think deeply.
I don't know why, but, as I was reading this book the word 'dope' kept coming to mind. William James is dope. Give him a read. In this book, his first essay, The Will To Believe is the dopest of them all and makes it worth the read for those 30-ish pages alone.
He talks about how, whether we choose to act, or choose not to act, we make a non-neutral choice. And his ideas surrounding live and dead hypotheses are very interesting. Basically, a live hypothesis "appeals as a read possibility to him to whom it is proposed." Conversely, a dead hypothesis does not read as possibly valid to the individual to whom it is proposed.
"This shows that deadness and liveness in a hypothesis are not intrinsic properties, but relations to the individual thinker. They are measured by his willingness to act irrevocably. Practically, that means belief; but there is some believing tendency wherever there is willingness to act at all."
Read this book, and you will think deeply.
Read
September 8, 2013William James is that great thinker who seems to possess a common sense that reveals what utter BS the received "common sense" of day-to-day life is. His positions are sane, reasonable, and at the same time utterly revolutionary in their minimal tolerance for preconceived notions. Namely, those of the proto-logical positivists of his day on one side, and the Hegelians and British empiricists on the other. And William James, by and large, wrote these essays not as philosophical monographs but as lectures to a fairly general educated public-- students and scientists and clergy-- which gives them their compelling, readable air. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, I felt the need, in my interior mental voice, that I should frame my disagreements in a suitably "Jamesian," pragmatist fashion. Which should be a sign of how strong his perspectives are.
November 28, 2012
I am reading and rereading these essays.
I find myself very drawn to this turn of the century American philosopher/psychologist. I need to think about why I find his thoughts appealing and then I can say more.
Here is a quote from the last paragraph of the first essay, which the collection is titled from:
"If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future,no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that HE is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him."
hmmmmmm
I find myself very drawn to this turn of the century American philosopher/psychologist. I need to think about why I find his thoughts appealing and then I can say more.
Here is a quote from the last paragraph of the first essay, which the collection is titled from:
"If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future,no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that HE is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him."
hmmmmmm
December 24, 2024
I will note to start, that while I often find William James interesting, I don't often find myself agreeing with him. That is certainly the case with this collection of essays.
It is also good to remember that James was a Pragmatist philosopher, and that was the point of view he took on most things. I found it helpful to have read Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking before this essay collections.
The first four essays -- "The Will to Believe" (which James later thought should have been better titled: "The Right to Believe"), "Is Life Worth Living?", "The Sentiment of Rationality" and "Reflex Action and Theism" -- are broadly a defense of the religious belief in the age of science. I didn't find it particularly convincing. They seems to boil down to the idea that idea that ultimately we have to decide what we really believe, and that the religious view will often work better for the individual than the scientific view. But this involves comparing two things (science and religion) that are really not the same thing at all. I think this is a place where James' mystical leanings leads him to the conclusion that agrees better with his personal feelings.
"The Dilemma of Determinism" is a very Pragmatist essay, but not a particularly successful one; more of a word-game than anything else.
"The Moral Philosopher and Moral Life" is another Pragmatist essay by a man clearly out of patience with those viewing life through the lens of pure theory. I can relate.
The next two essays -- "Great Men and Their Environment" and "The Importance of Individuals" -- are historical theory, and not particularly convincing if you don't already agree with that view. Honestly, I've always found followers of Great Man theory to be a bit simple minded in their approach to history. Not that there aren't great men (and women), but they tend to forget that human society is by-and-large a team effort, but popular history doesn't tend to do a good job of remembering the "supporting" players.
Not having read Hegel, I can't really comment on "Some Hegelisms" other than to think that James must have enjoyed annoying Hegel's followers in the US.
"What Psychical Research has Accomplished" has not aged well, except to show that James' didn't understand the concepts of evidence or testability very well.
And finally, I have trouble taking "Human Immortality" very seriously. It's all castles in the air, and while you can believe anything you want, there was nothing very convincing there to believe.
It is also good to remember that James was a Pragmatist philosopher, and that was the point of view he took on most things. I found it helpful to have read Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking before this essay collections.
The first four essays -- "The Will to Believe" (which James later thought should have been better titled: "The Right to Believe"), "Is Life Worth Living?", "The Sentiment of Rationality" and "Reflex Action and Theism" -- are broadly a defense of the religious belief in the age of science. I didn't find it particularly convincing. They seems to boil down to the idea that idea that ultimately we have to decide what we really believe, and that the religious view will often work better for the individual than the scientific view. But this involves comparing two things (science and religion) that are really not the same thing at all. I think this is a place where James' mystical leanings leads him to the conclusion that agrees better with his personal feelings.
"The Dilemma of Determinism" is a very Pragmatist essay, but not a particularly successful one; more of a word-game than anything else.
"The Moral Philosopher and Moral Life" is another Pragmatist essay by a man clearly out of patience with those viewing life through the lens of pure theory. I can relate.
The next two essays -- "Great Men and Their Environment" and "The Importance of Individuals" -- are historical theory, and not particularly convincing if you don't already agree with that view. Honestly, I've always found followers of Great Man theory to be a bit simple minded in their approach to history. Not that there aren't great men (and women), but they tend to forget that human society is by-and-large a team effort, but popular history doesn't tend to do a good job of remembering the "supporting" players.
Not having read Hegel, I can't really comment on "Some Hegelisms" other than to think that James must have enjoyed annoying Hegel's followers in the US.
"What Psychical Research has Accomplished" has not aged well, except to show that James' didn't understand the concepts of evidence or testability very well.
And finally, I have trouble taking "Human Immortality" very seriously. It's all castles in the air, and while you can believe anything you want, there was nothing very convincing there to believe.
June 12, 2017
Bound in these pages is some of the most thought-provoking and informative lectures the William James ever gave. From “The Will to Believe,” delivered at both Yale and Brown Universities, in the late 1890s, through “Human Immortality,” delivered as part of the Ingersoll Lectureship at Harvard, James ability to capture the mood of the subject is riveting.
At the twilight of the 19th century, scientific theories, Hegelianism, and Materialism were the de facto topics for discussion and argument satiating the philosophical landscape. James confronts these ideas with an intriguing approach that negates some of the core aspects of their theses. This does not mean that James was correct qua correctness; but, only that he had the ability to look at the fundamental arguments presented in these theories and offer up a parallax view of the human condition.
As an example, in “The Will to Believe,” James argues, contra W.K. Clifford’s summation that “... [I]t is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” As James points out, this is a moral value judgment. The emphasis placed on all three words moral, value and judgment. Hence, it is ultimately our nature, as humans, to make decisions passionately when deciding between options that are not necessarily clear. Of course, Clifford might have replied, and scolded us, to withhold our judgment in such cases, but that action, by itself, would be a passionate decision.
Consequently, Clifford’s advice would be the actual antithesis of his proclamation; the clearest example of a contradiction.
However, James does not stop there. He provides us with a revealing parallax [παράλλαξις] view of Justice [δικαιοσύνη] that gets buried beneath the main thesis of “Our passional nature” deciding options between propositions. This view is that,
“No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another’s mental freedoms; then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism’s glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things” (James, p. 30).
While I personally cannot agree with many aspects of James’ belief system, I do see the value in taking the time to explore his ideas and writings.
Happy Reading!
February 19, 2025
William James had a huge impact on psychology, especially in areas like education, religion, and mysticism. In The Will to Believe, he argues that our beliefs can shape reality, even without evidence—essentially, our beliefs can create their own truth. In Human Immortality, a speech he gave at Harvard, he explores the idea of life after death. These essays show how groundbreaking James’ ideas were, and they’re still influential in psychology today.
June 21, 2020
I read this book while I was studying at the West Virginia University. It made a huge impact on me in terms of helping me understand the limitation of human reasoning. I also resonated a lot with Jame's pragmatical philosophy of truth. I would definitely reread it when I have more free time.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 3, 2021
This book took me quite awhile to get through. I read an essay or two in between other books. There were a couple lines that I liked and maybe a few topics I found interesting, but the rest I found hard to follow and stay interested in.
February 25, 2025
james at his worst, his most apologetic. his tone grates much more when you wildly disagree. still, there is something wonderful about 'the will to believe' and the other early essays. and especially the silly chapter on hegelism, including his notes taken reading hegel on nitrous
May 23, 2017
Excellent writings from William James. Must read as someone who is looking for an "explanation" of belief/faith.
September 11, 2019
A good book, especially for readers of 20th century literature. Is life worth living? James has an answer.
December 6, 2021
Thought-provoking...
December 28, 2022
Not too shabby. could actually understand most of what I was reading it was just boring and I was probably in a rush cause my annotations are terrible. American Philosophy Fall 2022
April 17, 2024
Total ledge down at the pub. D'ya hear the way this guy says "suppose"?
July 23, 2024
Why is belief so important? Why do we do it and why do we question it? William James discusses all this and more in this exploration of how we think.
August 5, 2024
Brilliant, endearing, illuminating. A magnificent human being.
August 23, 2019
The Will to Believe Essay contained here is one of James most important contribution to philosophy. The recognition that people hold many ideas that are just supported by their own willingness to believe in them.
The acceptance that people are willing to believe not just by facts but by faith.
The acceptance that people are willing to believe not just by facts but by faith.
December 1, 2013
I would say the first three essays- the will to believe, is life worth living and the sentiment of rationality- are his best. In the will to believe, James gives a practical justification for having faith in God, even in the mist of no evidence. He cleverly argues how agnostics are the real fools who think they are being wise for, "waiting it out" by showing their hypocrisy: they too act upon their emotions, like the theists. He carries this idea of faith into his next essay, by dealing with the question of wether life is worth living and he answers that " this life is worth living... Since it is what we make it ". Since both optimists and pessimists both share the same glass of water, wether it is half empty or half full, is up to the individual. The most crucial essay for philosophers - and especially scientists- to read would be his third. He explains not only the limits to deductive reasoning- both for rationalistic philosophers and mathematicians- but is willing to confess the limits of induction: the essence of science. He touches on a warning that Karl Popper later takes up and James should be credited as the first to seeing the limits of science. William James's, "radical empiricism" is evident through his writing but, one should not be too cautious to weight his arguments. For not only does he give illuminating explanations, but thinks a step ahead, and considers existing repuidations. There is much to learn from James.
December 9, 2012
The Will to Believe is a collection of essays and talks by William James. I disagree with James frequently -- although there is a fair amount I agreed with too. That said, he made me think. James' reasoning is thorough enough that it takes real effort to justify your own disagreement. This effort is healthy.
If I had to sum up my criticisms of James' general reasoning, I would say that: (1) He lacks many of the insights from the relatively recent studies showing the connection between psychology, neurology, and well being (e.g., when he assumes that certainly spiritual traits have no use if they do not point to the supernatural). (2) He never considers the reality that complex systems can emerge from simple systems (e.g., morality should not be able to arise from the interactions of individuals who are not themselves morally authoritative. (3) Like many philosopher types, he tends to confuse individuals and populations, especially when it comes to probabilities (e.g., we can not predict whether or not this individual will be great, therefore, we can say nothing about what produces genius).
He also indulges in the occasional false dichotomy.
Overall though, it was a very good read, and it helped me clarify may ideas that had been floating aimlessly in my mind.
If I had to sum up my criticisms of James' general reasoning, I would say that: (1) He lacks many of the insights from the relatively recent studies showing the connection between psychology, neurology, and well being (e.g., when he assumes that certainly spiritual traits have no use if they do not point to the supernatural). (2) He never considers the reality that complex systems can emerge from simple systems (e.g., morality should not be able to arise from the interactions of individuals who are not themselves morally authoritative. (3) Like many philosopher types, he tends to confuse individuals and populations, especially when it comes to probabilities (e.g., we can not predict whether or not this individual will be great, therefore, we can say nothing about what produces genius).
He also indulges in the occasional false dichotomy.
Overall though, it was a very good read, and it helped me clarify may ideas that had been floating aimlessly in my mind.
December 11, 2014
"Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must decide upon 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 passional decision, - just like deciding yes or no, - and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth."
In my world there are three philosophers who sum up the world views of humanity. Plato, Aristotle, and James. The Will to Believe gave me the instructions as to which of the former two to apply in any given situation. It is how I make sense of the dynamic interplay between vitalism and determinism and gives me my understanding of free will. Its how I understand the world.
In my world there are three philosophers who sum up the world views of humanity. Plato, Aristotle, and James. The Will to Believe gave me the instructions as to which of the former two to apply in any given situation. It is how I make sense of the dynamic interplay between vitalism and determinism and gives me my understanding of free will. Its how I understand the world.
February 14, 2016
Faith from a psychological perspective, pragmatism, some bits on the old rationalism-versus-epiricism debate, a kind-of-ontological approach to the question of free will, evolution, and what have you. Going through my notes, I find it hard to give a concise review because this is not a coherent book but a collection of essays that have something to do with belief or religion in a very general sense. I think this book might give you a good broad overview over James' universe of thought but it I don't think it even attempts to provide a coherent philosophical discussion. One needs a good stack of background knowledge in order to properly sort out his arguments, especially since James’ eloquent but verbose style makes it easy to get lost in language.
June 18, 2014
There is a very broad spectrum of topic here, ranging from those familiar with James' concepts of empiricism and pragmatism to topics a little more 'out there' -the paranormal, ESP, etc. As with all James' writings, peppered with poetry and terminology that makes for a good study of prose and antiquarian vocabulary. It's always enlightening to me to see the context of his times play out in the rhetoric of his works, while many of our contemporary notions have significantly evolved, many haven't.
Personally I hold 'The Will to Believe' to be the most pragmatic call to action put forward by philosophy. James takes the cake as to boldness and talking frankly about the subject.
Personally I hold 'The Will to Believe' to be the most pragmatic call to action put forward by philosophy. James takes the cake as to boldness and talking frankly about the subject.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews