Latest / The Philosophy Insights Collection / 01 Part 1 - The Present Dilemma in Philosophy - Pragmatism - William James
Transcript
- Lecture one the Present Dilemma in Philosophy. In the preface to that admirable collection of essays of his called Heretics, mister Chesterton writes these words, there are some people, and I am one of them, who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos effects matters, but whether in the long run anything else affects them. I think with miss Chesterton in this matter. I know that you, ladies and gentlemen have philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds. You know the same of me, And yet I confess to a certain tremor at the audacity of the enterprise which I am about to begin. For the philosophy, which is so important in each of us, is not a technical matter. It is our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means. It is only partly gut from books. It is our individual way of just seeing and feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos. I have no right to assume that many of you are students of the cosmos in the classroom sense. Yet here I stand desirous of interesting you in a philosophy which, to no small extent has to be technically treated. I wish to fill you with sympathy, with a contemporanoiust tendency in which which I profoundly believe. And yet I have to talk like a professor to you who are not students. Whatever universe a professor believes in must, at any rate be a universe that lends itself to lengthy discourse. A universe definable in two sentences is something for which the professorial intellect has no use, no faith in anything of that cheap kind. I have heard friends and colleagues try to popularize philosophy in this very hall, but they soon grew dry and then technical, and the results were only partially encouraging. So my enterprise is a bold one. The founder of pragmatism himself recently gave a course of lectures at the Lowell Institute with that very word in its title, flashes of brilliant light revealed against Simerian darkness. None of us, I fancy, understood all that he said. Yet here I stand making a very similar venture. I risk it because the very lectures a speak of dru They brought good audiences. There is, it must be confessed, a curious fashionation. In hearing deep things talked about, even though neither we nor the disputants understand them, we get the problematic thrill. We feel the presence of the vastness. Let a controversy begin in a smoking room anywhere about free will, or God's omniscience, or good and evil, and see how everyone in the place pricks up his ears. Philosophy's results concern us all most vitally, and philosopher's queerest arguments tickle agreeably our sense of subtlety and ingenuity. Believing in philosophy myself devoutly, and believing also that a kind of new dawn is breaking upon us philosophers, I feel impelled periphas et nephas to try to impart to you some use of the situation. Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits. It works in the nightest crannus, and it opens up the widest vistas. It bakes no bread, as has been said, but it can inspire our souls with courage and repugnant as its manners, its doubting and challenging, its quibbling, and dialectics of an hour to common people. No one of us can get along without the far flashing beams of lighted sense over the world's perspectives. These illuminations, at least, and the contrast effects of darkness and mystery that accompany them, give to what it says, an interest that is much more than professional. The history of philosophy is to a great extent that of a certain clash of human temperaments. Undignified, as such a treatment may seem to some of my colleagues, I shall have to take account of this clash and explain a good many of the divergences of philosophers by it. Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries when philosophizing to sink the fact of his temperament. Temperament is no conventionally recognized reason, so he urges impersonal reasons only for his conclusions. Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or the other, making for a more sentimental or a more hard hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trusts his temperament, wanting a universe that suits it. He believes in any representation of the universe that does suit it. He feels men of opposite temper to be out of key with the world's character, and in his heart considers them incompetent and not in it in the philosophic business, even though they may far excel him in dialectical ability. Yet in the forum he can make no claim on the bare ground of his temperament to superior discernment or authority. There arises thus a certain insincerity in our philosophic discussions. The potentest of all our premises is never mentioned. I am sure it would contribute to clearness if in these lectures. We should break this rule and mention it, and I accordingly feel free to do so. Of course, I'm talking here a very positively marked men, men of radical idiosyncrasy, who have set their stamp and likeness of philosophy and figure in his history. Plato, Locke, Hegel, Spencer are such temperamental thinkers. Most of us have, of course, no very definite intellectual temperament. We are a mixture of opposite ingredients, each one present very moderately. We hardly know our own preferences in abstract matters. Some of us are easily talked out of them, and end by following the fashion or taking up with the beliefs of the most impressive philosopher in our neighborhood, whoever he may be. But the one thing that has countered so far in philosophy is that a man should see things, see them straight in his own pecurely away, and be dissatisfied with any opposite way of seeing them. There is no reason to suppose that this strong temperamental vision is from now onward to count no longer in the history of man's beliefs. Now, the particular difference of temperament that I have in mind in making these remarks is one that has counted in literature, art, government, and manners, as well as in philosophy. In manners we find formalists and free and easy persons in government, authoritarians and honarchists in literature, purists or academicals and realists. In art, classics and romantics. You recognize these contrasts as familiar. Well in philosophy we have a very similar contrast expressed in the pair of terms rationalist and empiricist. Empiricist meaning your lover of facts in all the crude variety, rationalist meaning your devotee to abstract and eternal principles. No one can live an hour without both facts and principles. So it is a difference rather of emphasis. Yet it breeds and typathies of the most pugnant character between those who lay the emphasis differently. And we shall find it extraordinarily convenient to express a certain contrast in men's ways of taking the universe by talking of the empiricist and of the rationalist. Temper these terms make the contrast simple and massive, more simple and massive than are usually the men of whom the terms are predicated. For every sort of permutation and combination is possible in human nature. And if I now proceed to define more fully what I have in mind when I speak of rationalists and empiricists, by adding to each of those titles some secondary qualifying characteristics, I beg you to regard my conduct as to a certain extent arbitrary. I select types of combination that nature offers very frequently, but by no means uniformly, and I select them solely for their convenience in helping me to my alterior purpose of characterizing pragmatism. Historically, we find the terms intellectualism and sensationalism used as synonyms of rationalism and empiricism, while nature seems to combine most frequently with intellectualism and idealistic and optimistic tendency. Empiricists, on the other hand, are not uncommonly materialistic, and their optimism is apt be decidedly conditional and tremulous. Rationalism is always monistic. It starts from holes and universals, and makes much of the unity of things. Empiricism starts from the parts and makes of the whole a collection. Is not averse therefore to calling itself pluralistic. Rationalism usually considers itself more religious than empiricism. But there is much to say about this claim, so I merely mention it. It is a true claim when the individual rationalist is what is called a man of feeling, and when the individual empiricist pries himself on being hard headed. In that case, the rationalist will usually also be in favor of what is called free will, and the empiricist will be a fatalist. I use the terms most popularly current. The rationalist five will be of dogmatic temper in its affirmations, while the empiricist may be more skeptical and open to discussion. I will write these traits down in two columns. I think you will practically recognize the two types of mental makeup. That I mean, if I had the columns by the titles tender minded and tough minded, respectively. The tender minded rationalistic going by principles, intellectualistic, idealistic, optimistic, religious, free willist, monistic, dogmatical. The tough minded empiricist going by facts, sensationalistic, materialistic, pessimistic, irreligious, fatalistic, pluralistic, skeptical. Pray postpone for a moment. They question whether the two contrasted mixtures which I have written down are each inwardly coherent and self consistent or not. I shall very soon have a good deal to say on that point. It suffices for our immediate purpose that tender minded and tough minded people, characterized as I have written them down, do both exist. Each of you probably knows some well marked example of each type, and you know what each example thinks of the example on the other side of the line. They have a low opinion of each other. Their antagonism, whatever as individuals their temperaments have been intense, has formed in all ages a part of the philosophic atmosphere of the time. It forms a part of the philosophic atmosphere to day. The tough think of the tender as sentimentalists and soft heads. The tender feel the tough to be unrefined, callous, or brutal. Their mutual reaction is very much like that that takes place when Bostonian tourists mingle with a population like that of a cripple creek. Each type believes the other to be inferior to itself, but disdain in the one case is mingled with amusement. In the other, it has a dash of fear. Now, as I have already insisted. Few of us are tenderfoot Bostonians, pure and simple, and few are typically rocky mountain tufts. In philosophy, most of us have a hankering for the good things on both sides of the line. Facts are good, of course, Give us lots of facts. Principles are good. Give us plenty of principles. The world is injupidly one if you look at it in one way, But as in jupiteriy is it many if you look at it in another. It is both one and many. Let us adopt a sort of pluralistic monism. Everything, of course, is necessarily determined, and yet of course our wills are free. A sort of free will determinism is the true philosophy. The evil of the parts is undeniable, but the whole can't be evil. So practical pessimism may be combined with metaphysical optimism, and so forth. Your ordinary philosophic layman, never being a radical, never straightening out his system, but living vaguely in one plausible compartment of it or another to suit the temptations of successive hours. But some of us are more than mere laymen in philosophy. We are worthy of the name of amateur athletes, and are vexed by too much inconsistency and vacillation in our creed. We cannot preserve a good intellectual conscience so long as we keep mixing incompatibles from opposite sides of the line. And now I come to the first positively important point which I wish to make. Never were as many men of our decidedly empiricist proclivity in existence as there are at the present day. Our children, one may say, are almost born scientific, but our esteem for facts has not neutralized in us our religiousness. It is itself almost religious. Our scientific temper is devote. Now take a man of this type and let him be also a philosophic amateur, unwilling to mix our Hodgepodge system after the fashion of a common layman. And what does he find his situation to be in this blessed year of our Lord nineteen hundred and six. He wants facts, he wants science, but he also wants a religion. And being an amateur and not an independent originator in philosophy, he naturally looks for guidance to the experts and professionals, whom he finds already in the field a very large number of you here present, possibly a majority of you, are amateurs of just this sort. Now, what kinds of philosophy do you find actually offered to meet your need? You find an empirical philosophy that is not religious enough, and a religious philosophy that is not empirical enough for your purpose. If you look to the quarter where facts are most considered, you find the whole tough minded program in operation, and the conflict between science and religion in full blast. Either it is the rocky mountain tuff of a Heckel, with his materialistic monism, his ether God in his chest at our God as a gaseous vertebrate, or it is Spenser treating the world's history as a redistribution of matter and motion solely, and bowing religion politely out at the front door. She may indeed continue to exist, but she must never show her face inside the temple. For one hundred and fifty years past, the progress of science has seemed to mean the enlargement of the material universe and the diminution of man's importance. The result is what one may call the growth of naturalistic or positivistic feeling. Man is no law giver to nature. He is an absorber. She it is who stands firm. He it is who must accommon himself. Let him record truth in human though it be, and submit to it. The romantic, spontaneity and courage are gone. The vision is materialistic and depressing. Ideals appear as inert by products of physiology. What is higher is explained by what is lower, and treated forever as a case of nothing but nothing but something else of a quite inferior sort. You get, in short, a matrialistic universe in which only the tough minded find themselves congenially at home. If now, on the other hand, you turn to the religious quarter for consolation and take counsel of the tenderminded philosophies, what do you find religious philosophy in our day? And the generation is among us English reading people of two main times. One of these is more radical and aggressive, the other has more the air of fighting a slow retreat by the more radical wing of religious philosophy, I mean the so called transcendental idealism of the Anglo Hegelian school, the philosophy of such men as Green, the Cards, Bozanki and Royce. This philosophy has greatly influenced the more studious members of our Protestant ministry. It is pantheistic, and undoubtedly it has already blunted the edge of the traditional theism in Protestantism at large. That theism remains, however, it is the lineal descendant, through one stage of concession after another, of the dogmatic scholastic theism still taught rigorously in the seminaries of the Catholic Church. For a long time it used to be called, among us us the philosophy of the Scottish school. It is what I meant by the philosophy that has the air of fighting a slow retreat between the encroachments of the Hegelians and other philosophers of the absolute on the one hand, and those of the scientific evolutionists and agnostics on the other. The man that gives this kind of philosophy, James Martineau, Professor Baun, Professor Ladd, and others, must feel themselves rather tightly squeezed. Fair minded and candid as you like, this philosophy is not radical in temper. It is eclectic, a thing of compromises that seeks a modus vivendi above all things. It accepts the facts of Darwinism the facts of cerebral physiology, but it does nothing active or enthusiastic rhythm. It lacks the victorious and aggressive note. It lacks prestige in consequence, whereas absolutism has a certain prestige due to the more radical style of it. These two systems are what you have to choose between. If you turn to the tender minded school, and if you are the lovers of facts I have supposed you to be, you find the trail of the serpent of rationalism, of intellectualism over everything that lies on that side of the line. You escape, indeed, the materialism that goes with the reigning empiricism, but you pay for your escape by losing contact with the concrete parts of life. The more absolutistic philosophers dwell on so high a level of abstraction that they never even try to come down the absolute mind, which they offer us, the mind that makes our universe. By thinking it might for aught, they show us to the countrary have made any one of a million other universes just as well as this. You can deduce no single actual particular from the notion of it. It is compatible with any state of things, whatever being true here below, and the theistic God is almost as sterile a principle. You have to go to the world which he has created to get any inkling of his actual character. He is the kind of God that has once for all made that kind of a world. The God of the theistic writers lives on as purely abstract heights as does the absolute. Absolutism has a certain sweep and dash about it, while the usual theism is more insipid, but both are equally remote and vacuous. What you want is a philosophy that will not only exercise your powers of intellectual abstraction, but that will make some positive connection with this actual world of finite human lives. You want a system that will combine both things, the scientific loyalty to facts and willingness to take account of them, the spirit of adaptation and accommodation in short, but also the old confidence in human values and the resultant spontaneity, whether of the religious or of the romantic type. And this is then your dilemma. You find the two parts of your cacetom hopelessly separated. You find empiricism with inhumanism and irreligion, or else you find a rationalistic philosophy that indeed may call itself religious, but that keeps out of all definite touch with concrete facts and joys and sorrows. I am not sure how many of you live close enough to philosophy to realize fully what I mean by this last reproach. So I will dwell a little longer on that unreality in all rationalistic systems by which your serious believer in facts is so apt to feel repelled. I wish that i'd saved the first couple of pages of a thesis which a student handed me a year or two ago. They illustrated my points so clearly that I am sorry I cannot read them to you. Now. This young man, who was a graduate of some western college, began by saying that he had always taken for granted that when you entered a philosophic classroom, you had to open relations with a universe entirely distinct from the one you left behind you in the street. The two were supposed, he said, to have so little to do with each other that you could not possibly occupy your mind with them. At the same time, the world of concrete personal experiences to which the street belongs is multitudinous, beyond imagination, tangled, muddy, painful, and perplexed. The world to which your philosophy professor introduces you is simple, clean, and noble. The contradictions of real life are absent from it. Its architecture is classic principles of recent trace, Its outlines, logical necessities, cement its parts. Purity and dignity are what it most expresses. It is a kind of marble temple shining on a hill. End of Lecture one, Part one