I definitely have issue with James stating that one can have “the will to believe”’as he purports in his philosophy. I won’t say pernicious, but pretty darn close. We’re not far from “blind faith” here, but we will keep this comment secular. As a former pilot, I once had to fly through clouds—in the blind—in order to land. I wasn’t IFR rated, but a system moved in more rapidly than forecast. I had to make a decision which was less riskiest to survive. But my real life example isn’t a philosophical tenet that saved me. I do believe in the process of elimination to find a truth and theory. But I really don’t like “will” here.
This is essay is level 10 when I am at level 2! 😄 I need a full ratchet set, screwdrivers, and a hammer to understand the technicalities of this engine! But I will sneak in I had an affection for Peirce, and an aversion for James when at Stony Brook. 🤷🏻♂️😊
Very interesting article. I'd be keen to hear your take on John Dewey's term 'warranted assertibility' in this context. Dewey's pragmatism, building on some strands of James's work, seems to me to be close to skepticism in many regards. For that reason, he is often criticised by later (post-modern) thinkers such as Richard Rorty as being too scientistic. But I find Dewey's philosophical pragmatism (as opposed to the high-street variant) refreshing and a good way to approach many contemporary issues in epistemology.
Christopher, I'm not terribly familiar with Dewey's approach, other than in general terms. But yes, it certainly bears similarity with Academic Skepticism. I am, by contrast, a bit more doubtful about James, for the reasons explained in the article.
No, I don't think he would. That statement strikes me as falling into the non-evident category, because it relies on assumptions about human nature and complex empirical observations, in turn relying on statistical assumptions. It's not something the our senses directly show us as obvious.
I definitely have issue with James stating that one can have “the will to believe”’as he purports in his philosophy. I won’t say pernicious, but pretty darn close. We’re not far from “blind faith” here, but we will keep this comment secular. As a former pilot, I once had to fly through clouds—in the blind—in order to land. I wasn’t IFR rated, but a system moved in more rapidly than forecast. I had to make a decision which was less riskiest to survive. But my real life example isn’t a philosophical tenet that saved me. I do believe in the process of elimination to find a truth and theory. But I really don’t like “will” here.
This is essay is level 10 when I am at level 2! 😄 I need a full ratchet set, screwdrivers, and a hammer to understand the technicalities of this engine! But I will sneak in I had an affection for Peirce, and an aversion for James when at Stony Brook. 🤷🏻♂️😊
Mike, same with me: Pierce was interesting, and so was Dewey. James I found irritating…
Although his reputation was/is as an orator, for me, he is one of/maybe my favorite “classical” writer.
Very interesting article. I'd be keen to hear your take on John Dewey's term 'warranted assertibility' in this context. Dewey's pragmatism, building on some strands of James's work, seems to me to be close to skepticism in many regards. For that reason, he is often criticised by later (post-modern) thinkers such as Richard Rorty as being too scientistic. But I find Dewey's philosophical pragmatism (as opposed to the high-street variant) refreshing and a good way to approach many contemporary issues in epistemology.
Christopher, I'm not terribly familiar with Dewey's approach, other than in general terms. But yes, it certainly bears similarity with Academic Skepticism. I am, by contrast, a bit more doubtful about James, for the reasons explained in the article.
Massimo, would Sextus agree with this?
“The search for and inquiry into the truth, above all, are proper to humanity.”
No, I don't think he would. That statement strikes me as falling into the non-evident category, because it relies on assumptions about human nature and complex empirical observations, in turn relying on statistical assumptions. It's not something the our senses directly show us as obvious.