Final Report Blog Post

 

                   Emma Essary   

                   05/01/23

                          James professes that true beliefs are satisfying and can be indefeasible and

 unassailable. True ideas, James says, are like tools; they help us do what needs to be done. This description of truth is far from the defined “definition,” so to speak, but it may be the more accurate description. If something is in accordance with your actual reality, wouldn’t it be perceived as true? In our society today, we are completely defined by our “identity,” or our personal truth. This truth can be defined as a gender, religion, or even as a simple inanimate object. Unfortunately, many fall into this categorization. Personally, I find that truth may be much simpler than even the wise William James proclaims it to be.

James describes truth as a series of doors that are 

all unlocked, but we decide which ones to open. However, these doors are not defined as either good or bad. Just because something “works” for you doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the right or true answer. Depending on the person, truth can be drugs, a sex change, or a nihilistic view to life. If it works, it works, though! Right? Not necessarily. Within Cophi, the website we post our questions to, there is a quote that states “Cling to those who search for the answers and run from the ones who have found it.” This quote always kind of bothered me, mainly because I feel as though I have found it! You may be rolling your eyes by now, but I truly believe that certain messages and beliefs that we hold dear to our heart should not be scrutinized, especially if they are good for you!

 

James does discuss this, so as not to completely disagree with

him, the idea that beliefs are not true until they have been made true by verification, is a statement agree with more than others. James wants us to shift our perspective away from what makes a statement true and instead focus on what others define it as or how they make it true. “Unpractical” ideas are to be rejected, and that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of it accepting it. In order to fully explain my position, I will be providing an example as to how this can not only be detrimental but also life-altering. 

 

To begin, because James’s position is so fluid.

Identifying whether a truth is “practical” or “unpractical” will be up for you to decide, and this is just my take on how important it is to recognize this miscommunication so to speak. For example, for three years I was consistently smoking weed. I considered this a part of my identity and shamed all the people who disagreed with my defined “truth.” It was easy, helpful, and allowed me to escape from some of my ever-present realities. I truly believed that this was a practical and satisfying way to live, and it helped me function in my day-to-day life. However, this truth also lead me down a path of self-destruction, isolating myself from the ones that I loved. Above that, with so many people supporting it and considering it unharmful I never wanted to change. This was one of my tools, but it was far from a healthy one. 

 

There are far more extreme examples of this miss-step,

but above all, truth should be defined more specifically. When you are at your lowest, and you discover that your preconceived “truths” don’t work for you, there should always be room for change. James recognized this, which is why he may have pointed out that verification of truth is important. However, who are we to define that? Truth cannot be anything, James agrees, but truth also cannot be defined person to person. As a young adult studying Psychology, I am sure that William James was far more versed in understanding these philosophies. My biggest concern with them, though, is just how easily they can be taken the wrong way. My faith has never failed me, nor my ideals or beliefs because they are so clearly defined. 

 

James also views truth as something that happens to an idea, 

and believes that concepts such as math don’t need verification. I can recognize where James is coming from when discerning his defined “truth,” but my biggest point here at that you can avoid falsifying something for the sake that it “works for you.” The most harmful thing to understand about this is that other truths tend to band-wagon. We see one individual doing something that works for them well, do it ourselves, and possibly form an unwanted habit or even addiction. The line here is so difficult to find, which is what makes this philosophy so controversial. You can also argue that these “truths,” or habits, should be rejected because they can be proven false. This brings me into my final thought.

 

James discusses that something can be true as long

as no one disagrees with them. My biggest problem above all is that we can technically define anything we do as “our truth” if no one falsifies it, it lasts over time, it works for us, and can be verified. My questions are how, why, and when? We don’t completely know where this can take any given individual. Imagine you were to tell a child this theory and allowed them to go wonder about in the world. Wouldn’t it be much easier to know what is true and good before trying to figure it out in such a way? Or, at the very least, let them know that just because something feels good doesn’t mean it is good. For many years Americans believed cigarettes weren’t bad for you! That was our truth. My biggest belief regarding this theory is that we cannot trust ourselves in this world, only our faith.  

 

Surprisingly, after all of that, I do not 

disagree with James completely. James strongly believed that our ideas and defined truths can change. It doesn’t matter how long we think we have it figured out; this reality can always be altered. The hardest thing to discern overall is the starting point. We don’t always know if something will be good or bad for us until after some configuration. I consider his theory more as trial and error, which is why I strongly believe our quest for truth shouldn’t stop (until we have found it). If we do miraculously find it, someone could just as easily try to change our minds. Would this also be considered falsification? No, not necessarily, but we must stand by our truths while also keeping an open mind. 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iloy8p6Jl-o