[HN Gopher] William James and the philosophy of pragmatism (2018)
___________________________________________________________________
William James and the philosophy of pragmatism (2018)
Author : prismatic
Score : 89 points
Date : 2024-11-26 03:44 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.neh.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.neh.gov)
| User23 wrote:
| The 19th century American pragmatists are, in my opinion, the
| most consequential philosophical school ever. James, Holmes,
| Peirce, and others did remarkable work. They fully embraced the
| natural philosophy, which would come to be called science, in a
| way that many of their former peers didn't.
| deepnet wrote:
| Yes, we can but try, and ( only ) in trying find it so. For
| better or for worse.
|
| Fascinating man and pragmatic scholar, James.
|
| Empirical and stoic
| backtoyoujim wrote:
| "The Metaphysical Club" is a great book about this subject and
| these folks.
| wslh wrote:
| I completely agree, this is one of the greatest books on the
| subject. I highly recommend checking out its Goodreads page [1]
| for reviews and more context.
|
| [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5519635-the-
| metaphysical...
| User23 wrote:
| It's strange how the standard American History classes pretty
| much ignore the late 19th century. It was a time of real
| intellectual flourishing in America. With the notable
| exception of Benjamin Franklin, it's when American scientists
| really became globally relevant rather than smart folks who
| more or less just stayed kept up with European advances.
| Peano cited Peirce as his inspiration for the logical
| notation we now use today. And Gibbs[1] was one of the
| fathers of modern thermodynamics.
|
| While writing this comment I learned that Gibbs shared
| Peirce's interest in graphical notations. They're interesting
| to me, because in a lot of ways they feel clunkier than
| traditional mathematical formulae, but when they work, boy do
| they ever work well. Feynman diagrams are maybe the most well
| known example.
|
| I'm pretty sure there are millions waiting to be made with a
| good AI powered diagrammatic IDE.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs
| zoom6628 wrote:
| Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since
| Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then
| understand. About 2000 years before Americans. But maybe I'm
| biased or ignorant. Happy to be enlightened (pun intended).
| ta8645 wrote:
| My impression is that Buddhism has a focus on "inner life"
| rather than the material world. So their pragmatism would
| naturally be employed on spiritual attainment, rather than
| science. After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that
| the reality around us, is mere illusion.
| rramadass wrote:
| > After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the
| reality around us, is mere illusion.
|
| There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your
| comment may lead one to believe. Here is wikipedia -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
| ta8645 wrote:
| > There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then
| your comment may lead one to believe
|
| There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion.
| On top of which, you haven't offered an alternate
| explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more
| deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is
| truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the
| article, the technological revolution would have been much
| further along 2000 years ago.
| hmm37 wrote:
| I suppose it depends on which branch of Buddhism people
| are talking about. There are obviously some which
| practice extreme idealism, but almost all branches
| believe that reality (as we commonly define it) DOES
| exist, but merely that it's a changing reality, rather
| than a truth that remains forever true, thus unchanging.
| rramadass wrote:
| > There's nothing in your link that contradicts my
| assertion.
|
| I was pointing to your assertion that "large factions
| within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is
| mere illusion" is not quite right. The wikipedia page is
| really good in elaborating the nuances.
|
| The phrase "Reality is mere Illusion" is the worst
| translated from Sanskrit/Pali into English. In the
| original texts "Illusion" does not mean "it does not
| exist" but that "it does not exist independent of a more
| fundamental substratum". The common analogy given is that
| of waves in a ocean of water. The waves are dependent on
| the water for their manifestation and come and go. The
| other point is that we only "Perceive Reality" and not as
| it truly is. All together we get a picture of Reality
| which is very simplistically called a "Illusion".
|
| >you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why
| Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation,
| than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the
| pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the
| technological revolution would have been much further
| along 2000 years ago.
|
| This is easily explained. If by various internal
| practices we can modulate our understanding of "Reality"
| (a subjective viewpoint) then the motivation to explain
| the "workings" of the Universe independent of us becomes
| no longer important. That is the reason Hindu
| philosophies (Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism are all
| derivatives) focus exclusively on the "Mind" and
| understanding "our true nature".
| ta8645 wrote:
| > .. by various internal practices we can modulate our
| understanding of "Reality"
|
| You just restated my explanation in more flowery
| language.
| rramadass wrote:
| That's only part of it. My main point was that simplistic
| phrases like "Reality is mere Illusion" _are_ wrong.
| mistermann wrote:
| In a sense it's kind of tautological: if someone
| _genuinely experiences_ something, if "reality" is the
| only existent realm or category they have knowledge of
| (as opposed to Maya for example), then it basically _has
| to "be" reality_.
|
| Also relevant:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
|
| Another good analogy would be how people used to talk
| about the physical world before science arrived on the
| scene: crude approximations, that "everyone knows".
| rramadass wrote:
| You have to be careful here.
|
| Hindu/Buddhist Philosophy is mainly experiential and
| explicitly says "the true self" (Purusha/Atman etc.)
| cannot be described in words. It can only be experienced
| by "dissolving" ("Laya" in Sanskrit) your self-identity
| (aka Ahamkara) as something different from the "whole"
| (Brahman etc). Different schools come at this from
| different angles thus complicating the matter even
| further.
| mistermann wrote:
| No disagreement here!
| mistermann wrote:
| > There's nothing in your link that contradicts my
| assertion.
|
| The illusion (as opposed to _mere_ illusion) in action.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| What facts of nature helped you understand that it is wrong to
| murder someone based on their skin colour or religion?
| abc123abc123 wrote:
| I like the pragmatic nature of pragmatism (pun intended!) but
| this is the best critique against it. By its nature, it is
| descriptive and not normative, so it could be argued that it
| in fact, is not a philosophy at all, but instead "proto-
| science" or perhaps science for the common man.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| I don't get that feeling from reading James himself. He
| offers a VERY good philosophical and logical basis for the
| golden rule, and one that clearly points toward an ever-
| expanding "inclusion" of other beings to be taken care
| of/treated with respect.
|
| Far more sound and defensible than any other moral system
| I've encountered.
|
| TLDR of that basis: minds depend first and foremost on
| categorization and distinction. They must have a built-in
| way to discriminate types of things and they must have a
| preference for treating like things alike. As a conscious
| person develops, they understand other people to be like
| themselves and therefore ought to have a preference for
| treating others like themselves.
|
| That's not to say this imperative can't be overridden by
| other concerns, but those other concerns all seem quite
| obviously more superficial than this extremely fundamental
| one of "how do I even discern this thing from that thing."
|
| Pair this with some of the work on "what is stuff" that the
| Buddhists made a ton of progress on, and you have a
| logically sound moral system that should compel you to
| treat _everything_ (and certainly all living things) with
| respect (using "respect" as a catch-all for "the range of
| behaviors you'd expect from following the golden rule")
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| >they must have a preference for treating like things
| alike
|
| Suppose I recognize a type of thing, "dollars". I spend
| some of my dollars to buy food. Given this "preference
| for treating like things alike", does that mean I now
| have to spend _all_ my dollars to buy food?
|
| >As a conscious person develops, they understand other
| people to be like themselves and therefore ought to have
| a preference for treating others like themselves.
|
| I imagine an egoist/solipsist could respond by saying
| "well, I put myself in a special category, a category
| with just one object in it".
|
| - - -
|
| In my view, the is/ought boundary is fairly inescapable
| here.
|
| Imagine a hypothetical intelligent species that's
| predatory, 100% carnivorous, and solitary. Like a coyote,
| but with the reasoning and philosophy ability of a human.
| It lacks mirror neurons, and it kills daily or weekly for
| its very survival.
|
| Can you think of an argument that would actually _work_
| to persuade a coyote philosopher that it should adopt a
| vegan diet? I can 't.
|
| IMO, human compassion is downstream of us being a social
| species. Once you have compassion for at least one fellow
| human, you can at least argue that restricting that
| compassion to just a subset of humans, or just a single
| species, seems rather arbitrary.
|
| But bootstrapping compassion from an egoist perspective,
| and convincing a sentient coyote philosopher to go vegan,
| seems a bit harder. I imagine from the coyote
| philosopher's perspective, "suffering is bad when it
| happens to you, and you're not special, therefore
| suffering is also bad when it happens to other beings"
| would seem like a rather trippy and counter-intuitive
| argument.
|
| - - -
|
| An interesting question on the boundary between is and
| ought: "Are shrimp capable of suffering?" (See HN
| discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172705
| ) People generally treat it as a factual question that
| can be resolved through ordinary scientific discourse,
| but it's also a key values question -- if shrimp can
| suffer, that ought to change our values re: the
| importance of humane treatment. And there's a chance
| we'll never know the 'fact of the matter' regarding
| whether shrimp can suffer. I'm not sure an experiment
| can, in principle, provide a definitive answer.
|
| Same line of argument goes for advanced AI models. If AI
| passes the Turing test, can one argue that it's morally
| irrelevant merely because it runs on silicon substrate?
| Seems dubious. (If I gradually replace the neurons in
| your brain with transistors, do you gradually become
| morally irrelevant?)
|
| So if we're going to regard advanced AI as non-sentient,
| what's the key differentiator supposed to be? Is there
| actually any way to definitively answer this question,
| even in principle?
| mistermann wrote:
| Karma (cause & effect) is an observable fact of nature that
| can be observed that may make one think twice about murder,
| at least depending on the nationality of who it is being
| murdered (this is a reference to the cultural acceptability
| of (sometimes _lust for_ ) murdering our geopolitical
| arrivals).
| renox wrote:
| > Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since
| Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then
| understand.
|
| Uh? AFAIK buddhism is full of "belief" such as reincarnation,
| karma etc.
| tananan wrote:
| You may not be ignorant - there may be an analogy there. But
| the post does come off as a bit tone-deaf.
| Toppenhimoff wrote:
| It's a huge part of the 12 step programs too. Or at least had a
| huge influence.
| rramadass wrote:
| Good Article, Excerpts;
|
| _James claimed that the best educated mind has the largest stock
| of ideas and concepts "ready to meet the largest possible variety
| of the emergencies of life."
|
| Pragmatism was a method for making decisions, testing beliefs,
| settling arguments. In a world of chance and incomplete
| information, James insisted that truth was elusive but action
| mandatory. The answer: Make a decision and see if it works. Try a
| belief and see if your life improves. Don't depend on logic and
| reason alone, add in experience and results. Shun ideology and
| abstraction. Take a chance. "Truth happens to an idea. It becomes
| true, is made true by events."
|
| Of course, some philosophers were skeptical of pragmatism. Truth
| becomes whatever is useful, whatever has cash value. Bertrand
| Russell was terrified that pragmatism would dethrone the ideal of
| objective truth, calling it "a form of the subjective madness
| which is characteristic of most modern philosophy." Pragmatism to
| these skeptics encourages relativism and subjectivity and leads
| to irrationalism.
|
| Pragmatism is the enemy of certainty, simplification, and
| fanaticism. It champions skepticism, experimentation, and
| tolerance.
|
| If, for an individual, faith leads to peace and security,
| banishes loneliness, increases endurance, and improves behavior,
| it can be said to be true for that individual. In all areas of
| life, we are acting on insufficient evidence. If religion
| increased happiness, encouraged ethical behavior, and offered
| eternal life, why not gamble?
|
| "How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness is in fact
| for most men at all time the secret motive of all they do, and of
| all they are willing to endure."_
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| > In "The Gospel of Relaxation," James applies psychological
| insights to everyday concerns. Limit introspection: don't become
| a prisoner of morbid feelings. To feel brave, act brave. To
| become cheerful, smile and laugh.
|
| Today known as "fake it till you make it"
|
| Or my personal version: "Action creates motivation, not the other
| way around"
| skeptrune wrote:
| I've always enjoyed the idea of "pragmatic truth". I'm probably
| misquoting a bit, but generally take it to mean "truth is what's
| most useful to your long term goals."
| geye1234 wrote:
| I mean, there are some insights and useful advice here, but did
| he really think the following?:
|
| > "Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by
| events."
|
| Aside from the obvious self-contradiction here, counterexamples
| are infinite.
|
| > If, for an individual, faith leads to peace and security,
| banishes loneliness, increases endurance, and improves behavior,
| it can be said to be true for that individual.
|
| It can be said to be _useful_ for that person, but not true.
| Perhaps I 'm missing something? -- I'm aware I'm only reading a
| summary.
|
| > Our emotions, our temperaments, and our current states of mind
| do affect our ideas.
|
| They can, if you let them. (At least up to a point: hopefully
| they won't lead you to think that 2+2=5.) It doesn't follow that
| our ideas are _determined_ by these factors. Nor does it remove
| the distinction between a good and a bad idea (a good idea being
| one which agrees with reality, ie one that is true).
|
| > In a world of chance and incomplete information, James insisted
| that truth was elusive but action mandatory.
|
| _Complete_ truth is elusive, and action is indeed mandatory, but
| a degree of truth is attainable, and an action is only good
| insofar as it 's informed thereby.
|
| Traditional philosophy says you need to find the truth and then
| modify your desires in accordance therewith. Here he seems to be
| saying the opposite. Again, I'm aware I'm just reading a TLDR,
| and I don't deny that there is useful practical advice here.
| o_nate wrote:
| I don't think James would deny that there are many cases where
| our simple black and white view of truth as something existing
| in the world independently of what we think of it is perfectly
| adequate, however, pragmatism is intended to deal with the more
| difficult cases, those cases in which philosophers find
| themselves at loggerheads about the nature of truth. When the
| question seems impossible to resolve, James's advice is to try
| and think in terms of what the practical consequences of a
| belief would be.
| geye1234 wrote:
| Thanks. I don't think this resolves the problem though, since
| whether or not the practical consequences of a belief are
| considered desirable will depend on one's philosophy, ie what
| one considers to be true.
|
| ISTM that perception of reality -- what one considers to be
| true -- will _always_ determine belief about goodness
| /desirability. James, _if I understand correctly_ , seems to
| get it in reverse: let your desire determine 'your' truth, ie
| your perception of reality.
| o_nate wrote:
| I'm not sure it requires philosophical agreement in all
| particulars in order to agree on practical consequences,
| e.g. an empiricist and a rationalist may disagree on
| epistemology but agree on the consequences of going outside
| on a rainy day without an umbrella.
| geye1234 wrote:
| Agree with the example, but philosophical disagreement
| will undoubtedly come on _some_ matters, like almost
| anything that 's debated in politics today. Example: on
| private vs government healthcare. What is the good that
| we are seeking? What is the value of the various
| tradeoffs that we inevitably have to make in choosing one
| system over another? These are philosophical questions.
| Only then can we answer the practical question of how we
| attain that good.
|
| Or for private life, should I devote myself to getting as
| much money as I can, or sleeping with as many people as
| possible, or are there other good things I should pursue?
| These are philosophical; the answer will depend on our
| view of reality and of ourselves. Again, only then can
| you get to the practical question of how we attain said
| good.
|
| In all these cases, and in the umbrella one, whether the
| consequences of belief X are good or bad will depend on
| one's view of said consequences. In the umbrella example,
| everyone happens to agree on the desirability of getting
| wet, but it doesn't help us in cases where we don't
| agree.
| o_nate wrote:
| I agree that pragmatism probably isn't much help in
| resolving these kinds of ethical and political questions.
| It might be helpful in terms of focusing the discussion
| when arguments get excessively metaphysical or abstract,
| but if people disagree on the practical ends that should
| be sought or the best means of attaining them, then I
| don't think pragmatism can settle that.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| There are two major kind of truth at last.
|
| - You drop an apple. 1+1 =2; e^ix -1=0 ... - You drive left or
| right side. You speak English, chinese ...
|
| Both are reality but of different kind.
|
| Yes can go to space or do modular maths.
|
| You can drive on the left when everyone drive on the right. Or
| one day someone decide better switch as this colonial.
|
| But these two or more have different nature.
|
| **
|
| You are moral right to do so is beyond truth, fact, ... dictate.
|
| It is likely subjective and anti human nature.
|
| It does not based on external rule or what others impose on us.
| You have to decide.
|
| But then you cannot just let yourselves go, ... you do not need
| to be Catholic or Christian to know human can do 7 sins. Just
| "let it goes" is where dark queen bring cold to the world. Human
| is only partially normal.
|
| **
|
| Buddhism ... last 3 years struggle with Tibetan kind and still
| not sure my Tracher insist the world does not exist. Always think
| the world exist, but not as you think and one should not be
| attached to it.
|
| **
|
| Always in mix state you are not pure whatever religion or
| philosophy you subscribe to - either incomplete or inconsistent,
| always act with and in uncertainty withlong term consequences
| unknown, values and keep on changing perspective both yourselves,
| your group and humanity as a whole ...
|
| that is human condition ... and we all die.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-29 23:01 UTC)