Browse Papers

William James presents a preference-sensitive and future-directed notion of truth that has struck many as wildly revisionary. This paper argues that such a reaction usually results from failing to see how his accounts of truth and intentionality are intertwined. James' forward-looking account of intentionality (or "knowing") compares favorably the 'causal' and 'resemblance-driven' accounts that have been popular since his day, and it is only when his remarks about truth are placed in the context of his account of intentionality that they come to seem as plausible as they manifestly did to James.

Those sympathetic to the naturalistic side of James hope that his critique of ‘philosophical materialism’ can be separated from those elements of his thinking that are essential to his pragmatism. Such a separation is possible once we see that James’s critique of materialism grows out of his views about its incompatibility with the existence of objective values. Objective values (as James understands them) are incompatible, however, not with materialism in its most general form, but rather with materialism that understood the ‘material world’ in terms of the sciences of the late nineteen hundreds. In particular, one could not defend the potential objectivity of value in the way that James hoped if one endorsed the particular ‘pessimistic’ cosmology characteristic of the sciences at the turn of the last century. Consequently, if one rejects certain ‘empirical assumptions’ associated with the science of James’s day, the possibility of a type of ‘melioristic materialism’ opens up, and this sort of materialist could still understand value in the way that James proposes.

Logic is viewed by many as inseparable from rationality, and James' 'rejection of logic' in A Pluralistic Universe may be the most flagrantly 'irrational' strand in his philosophy. Nevertheless, when viewed in the context of the psychological naturalism developed in The Principles of Psychology, James' 'rejection of logic' can seem both plausible and, crucially, rational. James' rejection of conceptual logic is deeply connected to his naturalism about concepts, and his belief that there is no reason to think that an intellect "built up of practical interests" need develop concepts that accurately mirror the structure of reality. James position is, then, not so much that we should give up logic, but rather that (given the practical rather than theoretical nature of our concepts) we should give up the assumption that we are rationally obligated to accept all the apparent logical consequences of all the claims that we accept.

James was always interested in the problem of how our thoughts come to be about the world. Nevertheless, if one takes James to be trying to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a thought's being about an object, counterexamples to his account will be embarrassingly easy to find. James, however, was not aiming for this sort of analysis of intentionality. Rather than trying to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for every case of a thought's being about an object, James focused his analysis on the prototypical/paradigm cases. This analysis of the core could then be supplemented with additional remarks about how the less prototypical cases could be understood in terms of their relations to (and similarities with) the paradigm. It is argued that this type of analysis is psychologically well motivated, and makes James account surprisingly plausible.

This paper discusses the relationship between the views of James and Royce on representation and their attempts to explain the "possibility of error," views which are, I argue, closer than many have thought. Appreciating where they do differ will point not only to an unstressed problem with Royces' argument for the Absolute but also to some unappreciated features of how James' account of truth ties in with his account of epistemic justification.

There are two ways that we might respond to the underdetermination of theory by data. One response, which we can call the agnostic response, is to suspend judgment: `Where scientific standards cannot guide us, we should believe nothing.' Another response, which we can call the fideist response, is to believe whatever we would like to believe: `If science cannot speak to the question, then we may believe anything without science ever contradicting us.' C.S. Peirce recognized these options and suggested evading the dilemma. It is a Logical Maxim, he suggests, that there could be no genuine underdetermination. This is no longer a viable option in the wake of developments in modern physics, so we must face the dilemma head on. The agnostic and fideist responses to underdetermination represent fundamentally different epistemic viewpoints. Nevertheless, the choice between them is not an unresolvable struggle between incommensurable worldviews. There are legitimate considerations tugging in each direction. Given the balance of these considerations, there should be a modest presumption of agnosticism. This may conflict with Peirce's Logical Maxim, but it preserves all that we can preserve of the Peircean motivation.

The purpose of this paper is to support the idea that pragmatism is still a productive resource for the study of health and disease. Combining the results of thermodynamic theories with evolutionism, some said that the biological structures selected by evolution are perfect to maximize the conservation of energy; as a consequence, they tend to reduce the entropy in the organism. Thus, a process can be defined as pathological if it increases the entropy, which means a diminished efficiency of the organism. .The point of view of pragmatism is useful to disprove the thesis of those who define disease only in relation to a reduced efficiency of the organism.

This paper argues that, according to James, we are committed to their being a kind of stable consensus, and we are committed to its being one that we can recognize ourselves in, but by underwriting such regulative ideals through a ‘will to believe’ rather than a transcendental argument, we make our commitment to their being an end of inquiry a practical rather than theoretical one. Objectivity is something we are committed to making, not something that we are committed to their already being out there to find. There is thus no limit we are approaching that is independent of our approach. Pragmatism is thus a position between Realism and Subjectivism because it takes it as unsettled which story will ultimately hold for us. Subjectivism may reign even after we do our best, but we might be able to do better, and if we can, it is incumbent upon us to do so.

This paper argues that treating James' "The Will to Believe" as a defense of prudential reasoning about belief seriously misrepresents it. Rather than being a precursor to current defenses of prudential arguments, James paper has, if anything, more affinities to certain prominent strains in contemporary naturalized epistemology.

Review of Cheryl Misak (ed.), New Pragmatists, Oxford University Press, 2007, 195pp., $45.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780199279975.