QUOTE

Philosophy is such a wonderful thing, a universal panacea and elixir for life! Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic: whoever goes through life ignorant of these is a miserable, contemptible wretch indeed. It's been said that each philosophy reflects the life and temperament of the philosopher who created it. Perhaps. Perhaps all philosophy is autobiographical, is rooted in the personality of it's creator, but this doesn't necessarily undermine the validity of philosophy. - Shawn

Shawn are you familiar with William James at all?  This is very reminiscent of his pragmatism and what is more, he was sympathetic to the merits of mysticism and religion and even tried to explain them in terms of 'expanding consciousness' if you'll allow me to use that term liberally.  Pragmatism for James is a sort of utilitarianism of belief:  that which brings about the greatest total satisfaction is what we ought to believe.  The revelations of mysticism and religion possess great utility in this respect and ought not to be denigrated.  He attributed the idea of God, mysticism and the conversion experience to extramental 'irruptions' of the subconscious.  We are always conscious of something 'more than' what we are.  This 'more than' is sub- un- and co-conscious mind.  James was a psychologist around the end of the 19th century.

hello Timothy,

yes, I'm familiar with James' work, and while I would characterize myself as sympathetic with James' brand of pragmatism, and I respect his role as a rather prominent psychologist, nonetheless, I don't think he penetrated to what I would consider significant depths of the mind.    What warrants this presumption on my part?    I say this based on his style, tone, and content of his works, in addition to his apparent lack of knowledge or insight concerning the mystical experience beyond what can be culled out of academia.   Of course, it's possible I'm wrong, but regardless of what we persuade ourselves and of how we interpret things, it doesn't change the fact of the matter, and so it's really a moot point in the end whether James experienced mystical states or merely resorted to talking of them without the actual experience.

What I meant in my statement above, which you quoted, is that every philosophy is a reflection of the philosopher and of his experiences, and that every philosopher projects himself out onto Nature, and hence, by learning more about Nature, he merely learns more about himself and the structure of his psyche and of his experiences.  Every philosophy is but a testimony to the perspective, or perspectives, of the philosopher.   If we're faced with a choice between multiple perspectives, world-views, or philosophies, then it's usually to our advantage to choose one based on a pragmatic criteria.    This choice depends on circumstances.   Different circumstances will call for adopting different perspectives and mind-sets depending on our choices regarding what's to our best advantage.  

I don't agree with your statement that "Pragmatism for James is a sort of utilitarianism of belief:  that which brings about the greatest total satisfaction is what we ought to believe."   I don't think James was defining Pragmatism in a utilitarian way, or at any rate, I don't recall reading anything in his works that would support this, but rather I believe that James was defining Pragmatism in an individualistic way, that we should do things, or believe things, that are most useful for oneself, which will not necessarily coincide with what's most useful for the community.      

I quote: "...there is but one unconditional commandment, which is that we should seek incessantly, with fear and trembling, so to vote and to act as to bring about the very largest total universe of good which we can see."

While James was in principle an advocate of altruistic utilitarianism with respect to belief, as is evident in the quote above, his theory afforded him little ammunition against the charges of egoistic utilitarianism.  The distinction, however, is not all that apparent.

but where is that quote from?   It seems to me that utilitarianism is quite independent from pragmatism.   The former is usually defined in terms of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, whereas the latter is usually defined in terms of determining what practical or 'concrete' differences that it makes to favor one belief, or mode of action, over another, and then choosing the one that's judged to be most practical.  

Here is James' definition of Pragmatism from his series of lectures (which are published) that go by the same name:

"The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many? -fated or free? - material or spiritual? -here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right."


Again, the point being that whether James was a utilitarianist or not seems unrelated to his pragmatism.    Hence, your statement that "Pragmatism for James is a sort of utilitarianism of belief" seems to me incorrect, or at any rate, requires further explanation.



   

Shawn

Don't focus on the wrong part.  No one here is saying that James was a utilitarian.  The point of the statement which you have for some reason beyond me chosen to crusade against was that when properly qualified (as it was) pragmatism bears similarities to utilitarianism.  That is all.  It's not even a big deal.  I could take out that sentence without damaging the original post if it really bothers you that much, heh.

I am seriously amused that you would doubt the authenticity or connotative accuracy of the provided quote, but to allay your skepticism here is the proper citation:

The Will to Believe  (New York, Dover, 1956) p. 209

QUOTE

No one here is saying that James was a utilitarian. Â

sure you are.  You did in your first post:

QUOTE

Pragmatism for James is a sort of utilitarianism of belief

and it was the above quote that I noted was incorrect since there is no necessary relation between pragmatism and utilitarianism, and by my quoting James' definition of Pragmatism, to show that they're not related even by James' standards.   They're completely different philosophical concepts.   You seemed to be conflating the definitions of Pragmatism and of utilitarianism,  and I just wanted to make sure you understood that they're different terms.  That's all.   I didn't choose to focus on this error, but merely pointed it out after I'd responded to the rest of your initial post.

In any event, the discussion of utilitarianism seems quite beside the point of this thread, so hopefully we can talk about more relevant topics.

Well, as much as I appreciate your assistance in understanding the terms, I can assure you, I am not the one in need of it.  Maybe you want to 'prove me wrong,' or maybe you just want to save face at this point...I dunno why you continue to pursue this ridiculous charade.

What can I say Shawn.  You're wrong on the interpretation of my sentence.  Moreover, I have plausible deniability on my side.  The statement was vague enough so that even if I meant what you said I did, you can't even come close to proving it.  If I wanted to actually make an argument, it would be only too easy.  Do you think 'sort of' means 'same as.'  Do you think utilitarianism concerns itself with motivation or belief?  I hope not.  So what could I possibly have meant by 'a sort of utilitarianism of belief?'  I know James called himself a pragmatist, but gosh darnit, what he meant was utilitarian...obviously.  Hehe, besides am I not the authority of what I meant?  Stop this silliness.

And on top of all of this, the comparison with James and utilitarianism isn't even my own.  I read it in a commentary and that author makes a much better case than you do.  Would you like to know that source too? Lol.

of course I don't think 'sort of' means the same as 'same as', but the statement that 'pragmatism is a sort of utilitarianism of belief' says that pragmatism is a subset, or a type, of utilitarianism (the 'type' being a 'utilitarianism of belief').    This being a quote from James, I have no idea what he meant by this statement and would have to see the context it's in.  In any event, I probably shouldn't have even brought it up.  

What's interesting is that James doesn't even attribute the concept of 'pragmatism' to himself, but admits that it goes back at least to Socrates, with the modern formulation belonging, more or less, to Pierce.   If anything, James would appear as just a popularizer of pragmatism, and doesn't appear to be involved with creating new ideas or concepts.   So why we invariably associate 'pragmatism' with James when it's not even his idea, and he even admits this himself, seems a little odd to me.

I haven't read that James considered his ideas to be in line with Socrates.  That's interesting.  I wonder in what way?  Does that also apply to Plato?  It's hard to sort one's theory from the others.  Plato before, Plato behind, and no where Socrates.

Pierce did originally coin the term pragmatism, although it was appropriated by James who misunderstood it.  Pierce ended up graciously relinquishing his right to it and taking pragmaticism instead.  The official statement about that is pretty funny.  Something about the new name being so ugly, it was in no danger of being kidnapped.  I like both Pierce and James, although IMO Pierce is a tougher read.  Semiotics....bleh.