Intellectual History, Philosophy, Uncategorized

Excursus: William James and the Examined Life

[Note: In this post, we are taking a break from exploring the basics of metaphysics. This post is a result of my recent reading through a couple of works by William James and I will be drawing from his Principles of Psychology and Pragmatism. In this post I do not address the errors of pragmatism as a philosophy. Rather, I examine some important insights James offers regarding the philosophic life. We will get back to metaphysics soon.]

Philosophy’s results concern us all most vitally—William James

William James opens his series of lectures on pragmatism with a lecture titled, “The Present Dilemma in Philosophy” in which he argues that everyone has a philosophy whether one realizes it, or not. In other words, James believed that everyone has a set of basic ideas through which they interpret the world and evaluate human action. This set of foundational beliefs function as a conceptual scheme, or grid, that shapes and influences how one thinks and acts in the world. In this post, we will explore James’s argument that everyone has a basic perspective about the universe which, in turn, influences how one acts in the world. Additionally, the conversation will be augmented with what other great authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas said about one’s basic assumptions about the world, the philosophic life, and the innate human tendency to be curious about the universe and important questions of life. These thinkers believe in the practical relevance of philosophical commitments and examination. For Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and James, thought and action are complementary and ought to be closely related. Finally, we will discover why human rationality is considered a gift by these thinkers and why self-reflection is a necessary part of understanding the Socratic Dictum, one of the most famous ideas that Socrates gave to the world: the unexamined life is not worth living for mankind.

Self-examination and critical dialogue requires the proper use of reason. Reason, or what is known as Western rationalism generally, is simply the view that affirms the use of evidence, examination, and logical evaluation as instructive in matters of belief and human action. Philosophy, which is the rational and critical discussion of basic ideas can bring one (if one is willing) to a greater understanding of the human spirit and its own existential potentialities for independent thought and personal freedom. Critical discussion and self-examination are deeply human activities and have important consequences impacting the meaning, purpose, and significance of human life. Through rational reflection and critical discussion, one might discover the freedom from being bound to erroneous ideas and beliefs. It is important to understand, then, how one’s philosophy and reasoning about the world has significant practical and existentially meaningful implications.

To start, we will examine James’s notion that everyone has a philosophy. This idea is often overlooked. James, however, thought that one’s philosophy, worldview, or conceptual scheme for interpreting reality was the most important thing for any individual and has important real world ramifications. To illustrate this, James quotes a passage from G. K. Chesterton:

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 affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else effects them. (1)

James believes that one’s philosophical outlook is the most important thing about a person and determines how one views and interprets the world. According to James, “I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a 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” (1). James thinks there are many important ramifications resulting from one’s philosophical position. I think that James is correct in his view that one’s basic assumptions about the world has an important impact on one’s life and actions. For example, if one views the universe as lacking a moral structure, significant consequences can occur. Thieves could justify theft because stealing is simply part of their concept of existence. Racists could be allowed to discriminate because as they define moral law and the universe, only members of their ethnicity should be treated fairly. The same holds true for how one defines life. Terrorists could kill their enemies because, by their definition of human life, their enemies are not human. One’s philosophical assumptions about life and the nature of the universe have important practical implications. On this analysis, we find that it is possible to be directed by incorrect views of reality.

Everyone holds some basic ideas on important social and political issues. For example, how one thinks about human nature is relevant to criminal justice. If there are no free actions and determinism is right, why would society hold anyone responsible for their crimes? Why bother with criminal rehabilitation if all human action is determined anyway? Almost any position, or debate of the day reveals philosophical assumptions. At first glance, it might seem that philosophy has little to do with one’s everyday life of work, the news cycle, technology, political parties, love, automobiles, economics, law, war, or anything else. Philosophy, to some, might seem very far removed from one’s daily life and struggles. “What does philosophy have to do with my life,” someone might ask? This conception of the disconnect between philosophy and everyday life is both common and very old. In his play titled, The Clouds, the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes mocked Socrates for always having his head in the clouds and portrayed him incapable of managing normal everyday life. Philosophy sometimes seems remote, or distant from actual lived experience. This understanding of philosophy is a mistake, however. Many everyday concerns involve one in philosophical reflection. Whenever one is asked about a particular war abroad, reasons about why the war is just, or unjust are usually discussed. One’s basic assumptions about the war, or nature of war, are revealed. Usually during the conversation, reasons for those reasons are then given in support of one’s position. The dialogue might turn to the question of “what is a just war, anyway”? This is an act of philosophy. Philosophy is a rational discussion of the most basic and foundational questions of life. Everyone has foundational ideas about the world. Whether it is a political issue such as war, abortion, school vouchers, or the merits of certain kinds of art, people inevitably give reasons for taking a certain position on the issue.On any significant topic of discussion, one’s basic assumptions about moral philosophy (ethics), philosophy of education, or aesthetics are quickly revealed. Philosophical reflection is not something from which we can escape. What we think about life’s big issues whether it be the existence or nonexistence of God, the nature or origin of the universe, how right and wrong is discovered, what is a just war, or what happiness is and how it ought to be achieved, determines how we live and interact with others and the world.

The truth is, many people engage in philosophical reflection without even knowing it. Everyday topics of art, economics, politics, science, or religion (concerns we face everyday) often draw people into thinking more deeply, or questioning their convictions on an issue. We seem naturally compelled to think and reflect about the issues that matter the most to us. For example, the economics student interested in investing in cryptocurrency may find himself reflecting on the essential properties of currency and whether scarcity alone is a genuine indicator of value. The Dutch Reformed student might ask her philosophy professor how she really knows that her Christian faith is real, or if it is simply a product of her family upbringing and acculturation. The mom who is concerned about her communist son, might find herself reading Marx’s Communist Manifesto and discover that she needs to re-evaluate, or further develop, her ideas about capitalism and communism. The county commissioner might start to consider what justice is after investigating certain zoning laws. Or, the physicist who believes matter is the ultimate foundation of the universe might begin to ask himself why non-material entities such as the principles and axioms of mathematics correspond so closely to real world applications and start to explore what the ultimate properties of reality might be. The examples could go on infinitely because every serious issue of life has philosophical implications. It is clear, however, to see how everyday issues can draw one into philosophic reflection. If looked at honestly, any important everyday issue one faces requires careful thinking and reasoning if one is going to have a greater awareness of that issue. The reason we are so easily drawn into discussion and inquiry, especially about the ultimate questions of life, is because it is one of the most defining characteristics of what it means to be human.

James rightly points out that philosophy is a natural human enterprise. One cannot escape from philosophical reflection because it is basic to our human nature. Humans have engaged in philosophical investigation and questioning from the beginning of civilization. Many philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas believe that the human propensity to wonder at the universe and to formulate questions about it was the beginning of philosophy. “For wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder,” wrote Plato (519), and Aristotle opened his Metaphysics by saying “All men desire to know” (Vol. 7, 499). Aquinas held that “there resides in every man a natural desire to know… and from this wonder arises in men” (Vol. 17, 51). James, belonging to this tradition, believes that human beings have a natural curiosity to investigate life’s ultimate questions even if they do not fully understand them:

There is, it must be confessed, a curious fascination in hearing deep things talked about, even tho 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 philosophy’s queerest arguments tickle agreeably our sense of subtlety and ingenuity. (1)

The ability to wonder, formulate questions, and reason about life’s ultimate concerns is a natural human response to the world. Plato believed that the human ability to reason was a gift from the gods, “from this source we have derived philosophy, that which no greater good ever was or will be given by the gods to mortal man” (455). It is, however, the human ability to reason which is such a great gift. It is a gift because anyone can reason and discuss basic and foundational ideas. Nothing keeps the average individual from investigating the questions they are curious about.1 The innate ability to give reasons for something is found in every child on the playground arguing about whether something is or is not the case. Additionally, reason is a gift because it can lead to personal freedom. If done well, it can free one from false understandings and misconceptions about the world. Through the right use of reason, one can become free from error which has important personal and existential ramifications.

Everything else in our practical lives is dictated, in some way by our basic assumptions about life and the world around us. James also believed that one can not live well without philosophy. James reminds his audience:

Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits. It works in the minutest crannies and it opens out the widest vistas. It “bakes no bread,” as had been said, but it can inspire our souls with courage; and repugnant as its manners, its doubting and challenging, its quibbling and dialectics, often are to common people, no one of us can get along without the far-flashing beams of light it sends 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. (1 – 2)

James holds the view that everyone is a philosopher in some way and that how one thinks about life’s ultimate questions directs the rest of one’s life. He also thinks that philosophy is not strictly for the professional philosopher, because everyone has a philosophy and is capable of critical discussion. Philosophy is something everyone can engage in.

Following James, it is then necessary to examine one’s basic beliefs. Plato, too, held that critical discussion and examination is something that anyone can do and has practical implications for one’s life. This is why Socrates said that philosophical reflection is the “greatest good of man” and “the unexamined life is not worth living” (210). Another translation of the Socratic Dictum is worth pointing out, “the unexamined life is not worth living for men.”2 The examined life is good for everyone and everyone has some capacity, or potential to engage in critical discussion and the examined life. In order to achieve this examined life one must understand why human rationality is an important part of life and why self-reflection or examination necessarily corresponds to it.

Along with wonder and the innate desire to know, another essential feature of mankind is rationality. Aristotle believed that the human ability to reason (among other things) is unique to human kind. When comparing human beings to other life forms, Aristotle held, “Man has rational principle, in addition, and man only” (Vol. 8, pg. 537). For Aristotle, in addition to everything else that humans might be conceived as having, only humans are rational animals.3 He did not believe that everyone always acted rationally, rather, he believed it was an innate human potential that could be activated if carefully attended to (book 1, chapter 13 of the Nicomachean Ethics makes this clear). Because most people have the ability to give reasons for their foundational ideas and beliefs, no matter how feebly, everyone has some potential and ability to reason. Many philosophers in the classical Western tradition have held that the human ability to give reasons for what one believes by supplying evidence and arriving at conclusions through careful examination, and evaluation, (including analyzing the thought processes involved when thinking through decisions or attending to tasks) separates mankind from other animals. Any project humans set themselves to requires a certain amount of rationality. Again, James belongs to this traditional and classical view of humanity. In fact, James believes that humans are the only “metaphysical animal.” Other animals, are only conditioned by habit:

They are enslaved to routine, to cut-and-dried thinking; and if the most prosaic of human beings could be transported into his dog’s mind, he would be appalled at the utter absence of fancy which reigns there. Thoughts will not be found to call up their similars, but only their habitual successors. Sunsets will not suggest heroes’ deaths, but supper- time. This is why man is the only metaphysical animal. To wonder why the universe should be as it is presupposes the notion of its being different, and a brute, which never reduces the actual to fluidity by breaking up its literal sequences in his imagination, can never form such a notion. He takes the world simply for granted, and never wonders at it at all. (Principles of Psychology, 681 – 682)

Deep reflection and wonder seem to be properties unique to humans. Rationality and metaphysical wonder are integral and important factors of an intentional and critically examined human life. Socrates, Aristotle, and James understood the existential importance of developing one’s rational potential.

A second part of the Socratic Dictum needs to be explored. If the unexamined life is not worth living for a man or woman, then careful reflection on the basic ideas one holds is, possibly, the most important activity one could pursue. Because one’s basic assumptions about life have practical ramifications, the examination, or questioning of these basic assumptions for their correctness and correspondence to reality is necessary and has important existential consequences. Plato taught that, “the discovery of truth is a common good” and has many important benefits for everyone (283). It may be that the thief’s view of existence is inadequate, or the terrorist’s view on the nature of human life is wrong. Or put more positively, critical self-reflection and examination could bring about a change in one’s most fundamental beliefs about one’s view of the world and their system of values. A change in one or both of these could have an important effect on one’s happiness, goals regarding one’s career, relationships with others, or simply choices about lifestyle. One’s most fundamental ideas of life impacts how they find meaning, purpose, and significance in life. It takes a certain amount of Socratic critical self-examination for one to determine what a meaningful life is. According to many of the great philosophers, careful and thoughtful reflection on the basic ideas of life leads to a life worth living. Philosophy is not just for the professional academic, it is something available to anyone and thoughtful self-reflection is something anyone can do. It is necessary for a flourishing life. If done well, it leads to a life of wisdom (the virtue of using our knowledge well), what many philosophers think is life’s highest good. The question everyone must answer, then, is not whether or not one has a set of basic beliefs about reality (because we all do) but, rather, are one’s foundational beliefs going to be based on careful and thoughtful reflection? To put it another way, the question is not whether one has a philosophy, but how exactly does one’s philosophy shape and effect everything else in one’s life? Careful thoughtful self-reflection is the best way to understand one’s basic presuppositions about life.

We have seen how one’s basic beliefs about life and the world have significant personal, existential, and societal implications. As James reminds us, “philosophy’s results concern us all most vitally” (1). There is, however, a final practical and personally meaningful implication of the examined life. A properly examined life frees one from tyranny. Unless we foster an attitude of wisdom and self-reflection, we run the risk of being bound to a harmful, wrong, and tyrannical view of reality. We could become captives of our own erroneous conceptual schemes or those of society if accepted blindly and uncritically. Every idea that comes to us from culture, politics, or the media has philosophical implications. If we take ideas unreflectively and without conscious examination, we might become victims of either ourselves or society. On the other hand, if we develop our rational potential and help others to do so as well, human freedom is possible. In the end, the decision to be made is to accept ideas uncritically and run the risk of living like habitual animals (as James indicated), or to seek freedom through self-examination and critical inquiry. Tyranny or freedom, that is the ultimate existential choice.

1Here, of course, we are considering the vast majority of humanity with normal cognitive capacities. Also, it could happen that someone prevents someone else from developing their rational abilities. That, however, would be tragic to their human potential.

2 Plato, Five Dialogues, trans. G. M. A. Grube, second edition (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2002), 41.

Other translations read “for a man,” meaning all humanity.

3The definition of the human being often attributed to Aristotle, “man is a rational animal” is not precisely found in the GBWW translation. Nonetheless, he often refers to the “rational principle” as an innate feature of human kind. Two quick examples can be found in Vol. 8, pgs. 474 and 495. The definition, “man is a rational animal” may have Scholastic, roots but the phrase does accurately capture Aristotle’s meaning.

Works Cited

Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica. Translated by Father Laurence Shapcote of the Fathers of the English Domincan Province. The Great Books of Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 17, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990.

Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 7, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 499-626.

——– Politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 8, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 445-548.

James, William. Pragmatism. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 55, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 1 – 64.

——- The Principles of Psychology. The Great Books of the Western World, Edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 53, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990.

Plato. Apology. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 6, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 200-212.

——- Gorgias.Translated by Benjamin Jowett. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 6, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 252-294.

Logic, Ontology, Uncategorized

Mortimer Adler on The Correspondence Theory of Truth

I do not remember when I first learned learned that the laws of logic are properties of being but they are, nonetheless, intuitively and metaphysically correct. Mortimer Adler provides a clue for why this is the case as he connects the law of noncontradiction with the correspondence theory of truth (truth is that which corresponds to reality):

The correspondence theory asserts (1) that there is a reality independent of the mind, and (2) that truth (or, what is the same thing, knowledge) exists in the mind when the mind agrees with, conforms or corresponds to, that independent reality. When what I assert agrees with the way things really are, my assertions are true; otherwise they are false. . . . The principle of noncontradiction is both an ontological principle (the principle that contradictories cannot coexist in reality) as well as a logical rule (the rule that thinking cannot be correct if it is self-contradictory).

Mortimer J. Adler, Intellect: Mind over Matter (New York: Macmillan, 1990), 98 – 99.

The law of noncontradiction is both a property of being (ontology) and logic (correct reasoning) which is perhaps one reason why it is true (corresponds to reality).

Uncategorized

A Prayer for Peace

Lord, we entreat Thee on behalf of the countries where the horrors of war are ravaging the land. Uproot from the minds of the leaders the desire for gain and the pride of conquest. Put an end to the shedding of the blood of men, women, and children. Give wise counsel and strong influence to all nations that stand by, that peace may soon be restored. Let men speedily learn the lessons that Thou wouldst teach them in the devastation. Let Thy Christians everywhere be given the Spirit of prayer to come before thee strongly in these days of distress. Let us discern the times and behold the visitation meant for our good. Help each one of us in our several callings and spheres of life to be a power for the preserving of peace among men and nations. O Lord, Thou wouldst make us weary of a sin-torn world; teach us well to run our race and in Thy name to battle with every obstacle of love, till Judgment Day ushers in the reign of perfect peace in Christ Jesus, our Lord. Amen

Lutheran Book of Prayer, 1941

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts, Uncategorized

On Democracy, an Index

The democracy series was a large project, so I decided to collect all the links and post them here in a kind of index. The hope is to organize the entire series and allow easier discovery of the posts. I also posted the works cited here as a helpful resource.

A final thought. I hope the series has been helpful in coming to terms with what a democracy actually is and why America is no longer one. It has become fashionable in some circles to claim that there is an inherent extreme individualism in the Western definition of democracy that is to blame for the decline of democratic societies in the West. Although it is true that many such as Locke did emphasize a kind of individualism, an unbridled or unrestricted individualism was never part of the Western idea of democracy. This should be clear from reading the Greeks and Roman (primarily Stoic) presentations of consensual representation. When things go bad (and they certainly are today) often it is because the fundamentals have been forgotten or rejected.

The posts:

On Democracy, Part One can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Two can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Three can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Four can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Five can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Six can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Seven can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Eight can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Nine can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Ten can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Eleven can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Twelve can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Thirteen can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Fourteen can be found here.

Works cited:

Adler, Mortimer. Adler’s Philosophical Dictionary. New York: Scribner, 1995.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Politics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes., Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 5, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Goodwin, Gerald, Richard Current, Paula A. Franklin. A History of the United States. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985.

Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Homer. Iliad. Trans. by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

Hutchins, Robert. The Great Conversation: A Reader’s Guide to Great Books of the Western World. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1994.

Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens And The Birth of Democracy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

Lukacs, John. Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed.

Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.

Pascal, The Provincial Letters, Pensees, Scientific Treatises, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 33, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Plato, The Republic,tr. Francis MacDonald Cornford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1945.

Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 5 July 2006.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. Hammond, N.G. L. and H.H. Scullard. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Ed. by Hornblower, Simon and Anthony Spawforth. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.

Thucydides. The History of The Peloponnesian War, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.