Can you explain/expound on this quote from Pierce:
"...consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
...from "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" ......... : )
Good question! How we answer it cuts right to the heart of what pragmatism means, in ways that will, er, "have an effect" on the interpretation of The Varieties of Religious Experience. Does anyone want to take a crack at it?
Personally I find the first chapter of the Varieties the driest, so maybe we could fill out this week's discussion with some general stuff about James and pragmatism. On Dec 14, 2013 4:32 PM, "Ruth Raubertas" ruthraubertas@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain/expound on this quote from Pierce:
"...consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
...from "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" ......... : )
WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames
So, take free will as an example: do humans have it? As I understand it, the pragmatic answer is that this is essentially a fake question. Is there any experiment we could carry out that would go one way if humans have free will, and another way if they don't? is there any existing need/want that we wish to serve, where we would use one approach if humans have free will, but another approach if they do not? As far as I know, the answer to both questions is no.
So basically the point of the quote is, every piece of knowledge that we have should be held to this standard, from scientific theories through ethical theories. We are supposed to toss out anything that cannot be tested or used. If two theories or accounts of the world cannot be separated by some test, we (if we're good pragmatists) refuse to consider them as distinct; there can be "no distinction without a difference".
Something that I have been wondering about for a while is, what about questions where the answer has some implication for how things "should" be. For instance, if free will exists, that seems to suggest that our forms of governance ought to be democratic, to preserve this thing that exists. Whereas, if humans don't have free will, it seems to me like that suggests a more technocratic or authoritarian society, because people's desires etc. are just one more constraint to be satisfied or at least considered, rather than some precious, irreducible force.
On 12/14/13, Jesse Raber jesse.raber@gmail.com wrote:
Good question! How we answer it cuts right to the heart of what pragmatism means, in ways that will, er, "have an effect" on the interpretation of The Varieties of Religious Experience. Does anyone want to take a crack at it?
Personally I find the first chapter of the Varieties the driest, so maybe we could fill out this week's discussion with some general stuff about James and pragmatism. On Dec 14, 2013 4:32 PM, "Ruth Raubertas" ruthraubertas@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain/expound on this quote from Pierce:
"...consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
...from "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" ......... : )
WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames
participants (3)
-
Eric Purdy -
Jesse Raber -
Ruth Raubertas