William James- #5 Grace A. #7 Emma S.
Nietzsche- #5 Will P. #6 Serenity F. #7 Daniel S.
FL 23-24 or HWT 25-26-
Something in QE Part III - Can we believe our eyes?- #5 Cameron W. #6 Amir S. #7 Maddison C.
Here's your audio review for Thursday's exam...
1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) What does it imply about the present status of what we now consider true?
3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
4. What 20th century philosopher carried on the pragmatist tradition? What did he say about the way words work? Does his approach seem reasonable to you?
5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) Does that statement seem nihilistic to you?
6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
7. What is an Ubermensch, and why does Nigel find it "a bit worrying"? Does it worry you that some of our peers think of themselves as exempt from the rules and norms that the rest of us follow?
8. How did Nietzsche differ from Kant but anticipate Freud? Is rationality less available to us than we think?
9. What were the three great revolutions in thought, according to Freud? Was he overrating his own contributions?
10. The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"?
11. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree?
- What is Weiner's favorite movie? What philosophical themes does it wrestle with? What Nietzschean idea does it resemble? How would you respond to the "demon" who proposes it?
- How do we write well, according to Nietzsche? Have you tried it?
- What is amor fati? Do you have an "all or nothing" attitude towards life? What does that mean to you?
- What is the "as if" approach to life? Do you take it? Does it work?
- What is Sonya's opinion of Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence? Do you share it?
- How does the "Hollywood version" of ER differ from Nietzsche's? Which do you prefer? Why?
Ed Craig (a distinguished MTSU alum, class of '21) introduces the philosophy of William James
MY FIVE STEP PLAN FOR KNOWING WILLIAM JAMES by Ed Craig ("Grandfather Philosophy" on YouTube)
I never had heard of William James before I went back to college at age 74, and I think of myself as a fairly well-educated man. I knew his brother Henry, the author. I have discovered that I am not alone in not encountering James in my education. I have been educating myself in James over the past couple of years and have come to love him. I have found that James speaks to me, and that there are great lessons in how to live in his writings. It has been worthwhile for me to know him better, and I think it would be for others. For any interested, here is a 5-step plan to get to know (perhaps) America’s greatest philosopher.
Step 1 Do a quick Google search. Read Wikipedia.
It helps your introduction to William James to get some sense of who he was and his place as an American philosopher. James is not part of the philosophical canon and does not belong to any “school” of philosophy. English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861 – 1947) claimed that the four great philosophical “assemblers” were Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, and William James. Good company. James was a remarkable man. A quick read of his Wikipedia entry on his early life, career, and family gives a taste of who he was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
Step 2 Watch an address by James biographer Robert Richardson.
An address by James biographer Robert Richardson in August 2010 to the William James Symposium in Chocorua, New Hampshire, on the 100th anniversary of the death of James, provides helpful insight into the type of thinking that makes James so valuable in understanding how to live. (Chocorua was one of James’s homes, and the view of Mount Chocorua from his home, which “had 14 doors which all opened outwards,” is on the home page of Phil Oliver’s blog, Up@dawn 2.0) https://jposopher.blogspot.com/
Robert Richardson, Will You or Won’t You Have It So
A second video from the conference contains the introduction of Robert Richardson and the Q&A discussion after the talk. Watch from @17:40. Note specifically James scholar John McDermott beginning at 19:40 when the discussion turned to James’s philosophical “school,” in which he says that James was not a part of any school, nor would he want to be, and that “in my experience there are persons who suddenly get introduced to James and things change, and that James becomes some kind of a presence in their lives.” (Richardson and Phil Oliver @26:04)
Step 3 Read Jamesian scholar John McDermott’s introduction to The Writings of William James.
John McDermott edited an excellent collection of James’s work in The Writings of William James. In his introduction to this collection, McDermott presents James's thinking in all its manifestations, stressing the importance of radical empiricism and placing into perspective the doctrines of pragmatism and the will to believe. The critical periods of James's life are highlighted to illuminate the development of his philosophical and psychological thought. The Preface and Introduction are the best place to start your journey into James.
Step 4 Read John Kaag’s Sick Souls and Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life.
Before turning to James’s essays and his biography, read John Kaag’s popular book, Sick Souls and Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life. John Kaag is professor and Chair of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts. In addition to Sick Souls, he is the author of American Philosophy: A Love Story (2016), and Hiking with Nietzsche: Becoming Who You Are (2018). It is a good story that shows how James can be a positive influence in your life.
Step 5 Read biographies and essays.
Now begins the study of James. He was a prolific writer and popular public lecturer. The best way to begin a study of James is with a biography and selected essays in hand and read the essays as they appear in the biography.
Biographies:
Robert Richardson, William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism
Perry, The Thought and Character of William James, two volumes (the gold standard for James biographies)
Essays:
Robert Richardson, The Heart of William James
John McDermott, The Writings of William James
William James: Writings – The Library of America, two volumes (Best collection for the serious)
(essays can be found online at https://www.gutenberg.org/
==
"Best book in the MTSU library" (more modestly, the best book by me in the library):
1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
ReplyDeleteThe point of the the squirrel story was to answer it in a pragmatistic form to emphasize an example of what is important when it comes to answering these types of question. I have been part of a couple of these questions and the way there resolved were either ending in a stalemate and talk about something else, or an answer manages to convince everyone. Typically the latter is because one option was more appealing of an answer than the other option.
2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) What does it imply about the present status of what we now consider true?
C.S. Pierce said this about the truth and his name rhymes heavily with fierce. It implies that what we consider true are all results of experiments that have been conducted in the couple of centuries science began to investigated. An example would be the laws of Newton are true because it has been proven and has been consistent with any other experiment related to experiment or evolution because at this point, there is a lot of evidence that tells us that it exists but not how if fully works.
5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) Does that statement seem nihilistic to you?
What he means is that the belief in God has become more questioned and that the belief in the teachings of Christianity are obsolete and peachy somewhat rhymes. The statement does sound nihilistic becomes it implies that the lessons in Christianity cannot be outside of the religion which they can meaning the teachings are not actually dead (at least some of them) can still be applied and be used by people even if the entire religion no longer had any followers.
for your response to number five, I agree. It is a very nihilistic viewpoint and I never agree when people say that without religion we don't have a basis for morals. Atheists as a community don't just run amuck wreaking havoc because they don't know what is wrong or right.
DeleteI agree! Our morals and how we act depend more on where and when we grew up at, and though yes religion can affect it, it doesn’t mean that we NEED it to set our morals.
Delete^I agree. you don't need religion to set your morals however, that makes morals quite subjective. How do you then tell someone their moral stance on something is clearly wrong when all morals are subjective? To you it might seem like common sense however, to someone else, not really.
DeleteI believe that while it is considered nihilistic in the sense of extremist skepticism. However, I think the point of the saying "God is dead," is to prove that if you truly live of a life of questioning you will ultimately come to the conclusion that there is more to life than anyone can truly know or have answered. And to this extent, from Nietzsche, the idea of a God was 'unreasonable.'
DeleteI would think that pragmatism in philosophy is quite subjective, and there can’t be any hard truths developed through this theory. Since it is based on what is beneficial for a person, and is what makes an argument worth arguing over, I think it would be hard for any two people to agree on the basis of the argument. If one person argues “reading is good for you” it all depends on their subjective experiences and reasonings behind reading. Maybe one person has learned a great deal from reading, but maybe another person finds it to be a hindrance to socializing and getting out in the world. I don’t know if this is making much sense, but what I am trying to say is that this approach to philosophy seems subjective and not concrete, because everyone will have different beliefs on what is important or beneficial to someone else.
ReplyDelete"beneficial for a person"--beneficial for persons AND society AND humanity
DeleteRorty’s idea that everything is subjective and there is no correct or incorrect answer to everything is exactly what I was getting at in my last comment. I think also another facet not discussed in LHP is that something might be right for the time, but as we change and grow it might become incorrect. I think of the Santa example, and how when we are younger it is right and it helps us behave, but as we get older we mature and develop an awareness for other people (at least we can hope), so the idea of Santa becomes fake and incorrect. Things are already subjective on their own, but when you involve time it becomes even more blurred.
ReplyDeleteRorty didn't think there were no correct or incorrect answers, but he did think the only way to arrive at them was through the messy process of conversation... and he thought there was no way short of persuasive conversation to coerce people into believing correct answers.
DeleteI hate the ideas of Nietzche… I think it is merely an excuse to do whatever your heart desires (even the dangerous and deadly actions). Can you imagine if people in our world thought that today. With everything happening in our nation, it would be a massacre of thousands of innocent people. I hate to even think of how terrible a world where people believe this would be like. This was a disturbing chapter for me.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think Nietzsche's ideas have several qualities to them, I agree that it can be disturbing. Especially considering the way the Nazis used and contorted his ideas to support their hate-ridden agenda.
DeleteThat is true. To give everyone freedom, it also allows people with bad intentions to feel entitled and excused for their behavior and harmful beliefs.
Delete^Nadia Briseno
DeleteRelying only on your heart's desires can be a dangerous, as your heart can be deceptive.
DeleteI agree with your point. Honestly, I feel like there are plenty people who do have this kind of mentality in our time, that the strong must destroy the weak, and plenty more people who champion them. I do think it is unfortunate how Nietzsche's works were miscued by his sister in favor of her hateful ideas. That said, it would not have been possible for her to misinterpret if some part of his ideas did not support those harmful views.
DeleteI see where you are coming from, especially in the context that he supported. Using desire as an excuse is problematic, especially in today's society where desire is abused as an excuse.
DeleteAs disturbing as it is, and as evil as they may seem, his ideas were very natural. The behavior that Nietzsche suggested seemed In line with the natural order which I believe is the appeal of it. I don't think a lion contemplates right and wrong the way we humans do.
Delete2.) C.S. Peirce, this implies that we have a very limited grasp or understanding of what is true and what is false because we can't run all of the experiments to test every hypothesis that a scientist comes up with.
ReplyDelete6.) He thought that Christian values came from the envy of Greek Slaves and how they used the values of generosity and caring for the weak to sort of "rebel" against the Greek aristocrats. I think that this is a very interesting theory because it is a phenomenon that still happens in the modern day. For example, the punk movement which goes against the ever growing lean towards authoritarianism and capitalism in Western politics by being a movement that supports going against authority and relying more on what you can make yourself rather than what you can buy. Overall, this is a really interesting theory that has validity in the present day.
7.) Ubermensch is the concept of a future person who is above standard morality and can create their own morals and values. Nigel finds this worrying because, when put in the hands of the wrong people, Ubermensch became a concept that supported the ideals of the Nazis and generally bad people. It does really worry me that, whether they are conscious of it or not, some of our peers believe themselves to be above the rules and norms of everyone else because when people begin to feed into those ideas then it becomes dangerous for everyone involved. While I think Nietzsche's ideas are interesting they are definitely flawed and could really only work in a world where greed and hatred don't exist.
6. An interesting thought. It's ironic that nowadays, rebellion against Western ideologies can also tie into a rejection of conservative Christianism. It's become standardized in a lot of fields such that it became like the aristocracy of ancient times.
Delete7) I think that the Ubermensch is a very interesting concept that is seaming to present itself in today society the more money a person has seems to be directly connected to the amount of power they now have.
DeleteFreud thought people believed in God because they had a desire to be watched over or taken care of in some way, a need that stems from childhood. I do think there is some credence to what he says about this because what is religion if not a way to cope with your existence, or a way to have answers to questions that scare you, such as the concept of an afterlife? Regardless of what you believe, I think that Freud had a really good point with this because of course it's a comfort to believe there is a powerful father-like being that is watching over you.
ReplyDeleteI agree! Many people use and follow religion as a way to make sense of the wonders of life. With so many possible answers, it’s easier to feel more comforted by the idea that something greater is out there pulling the strings, making everything work.
DeleteI partially agree with your statement. However, while what you said could be true for some people, it is not necessarily true for everyone. Freud did have a good point, yet it generalizes that everyone who believes in a God has that desire. That's where I disagree with him.
Delete1. C.S. Pierce wanted to make philosophy more scientific by including that in pragmatism. He believed that for anything to be true, there has to be some form of observation, evidence, or experiment to prove that. Pierce had a good point. Today, the truth is backed up by the facts. In the world today, we use research and experiments to prove almost everything.
ReplyDelete2. Nietzsche's view on the absence of God is a very interesting perspective. It made me think a little too. He asked that if God is dead, what is next? He stated that without God there is no right or wrong, good or evil. There is be no guidelines or limits on our way of living. I do not think, in this day, that you can convince people that God is not real. I do understand Nietzsche's perspective but I think God has impacted too many peoples' lives for us to just throw his beliefs out.
3. Ubermensch means superman. It refers to those who see themselves as heroic and want things to be their way without thinking about others. This was also the Nazi's way of thinking. Today, I do think some people do think that they are not entitled to the rules like others. It is nothing too extreme but if it is, they get punished for it or learn the hard way.
11. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
ReplyDeleteHe believed that people believe in god simply because it helps them cope. Our reliance on religion comes our psychological and emotional needs. The fear of the unknown is overwhelming and we need something to cope with the unknown. This is why we believe in something that defies the unknown.
My father would agree with this. We've talked about how some individuals require faith as a source of security, and reliance on religion helps people find a reason as to their existence without searching for it; however, I also believe that religious belief can be mostly a result of one's upbringing, and if all you know is based on a belief, it may be misleading.
DeleteReligion was based on the idea of explaining the unexplainable so I think Freud hit the nail on the head.
DeleteWhat was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteHe believed that physcoanalysis could not be tested or proven wrong through literal evidence. Claims were so vague that there was no exact answer on the truth. They also did not create specific, testable predictions.
Will Phillips
DeleteI would agree with this sentiment. Freud's ideas come from a background that is non-empirical and based on an assumption rather than an experiment. Frankly, I would prefer if some of them were testable such that they could be proven wrong, as I don't like many of Freud's analyses.
DeleteDepends on the question and evidence but it could be true. Take the Big Bang question for example. Regardless of the evidence there, we don't know for certain if it is true.
Delete5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) Does that statement seem nihilistic to you?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche argued that Enlightenment and scientific progress had destroyed western belief in god. This would lead to an eventual decline and death of christianity. The statement does seem to be one of Nietzches more nihilistic ideas.
Will Phillips
DeleteDo you believe scientific progress has led to a decrease in Christianity within our nation? And why?
DeleteI think Nietzsche is wrong , no matter how scientifically advanced we become as a society, there will always be open ended questions , and a all powerful and knowing god is the only explanation for some of these things.
Delete3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
ReplyDeleteBertrand Russell was critical of James's pragmatic theory of truth. He argued that James's view was too subjective because it defined truth based on what "works" for people in their practical experiences, rather than an objective reality independent of human beliefs and perceptions. For Russell, truth is not something that is simply useful or works in practice, it's about representing the world accurately, regardless of its utility.
4. What 20th-century philosopher carried on the pragmatist tradition? What did he say about the way words work? Does his approach seem reasonable to you?
The 20th-century philosopher who continued the pragmatist tradition was W.V.O. Quine. Quine extended pragmatism into his views on meaning and knowledge, famously arguing against the distinction between analytic (true by definition) and synthetic (true by observation) statements. He suggested that language and our understanding of the world are deeply intertwined and that the meaning of words depends not on isolated definitions but on their use in the larger web of human experience.
6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
Nietzsche believed that Christian values (especially those emphasizing humility, meekness, and self-denial) originated from a "slave morality". According to him, this morality was developed by the oppressed classes, particularly the slaves, as a response to their powerless and marginalized status in society. Rather than accepting their subjugation and inferiority, the slaves inverted the values of the powerful, who were associated with traits like strength, pride, and dominance.
5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) Does that statement seem nihilistic to you?
When Nietzsche said "God is dead," he was expressing the idea that traditional religious beliefs, particularly those rooted in Christianity, had lost their power and relevance in modern society. This wasn't meant as a literal declaration but as a metaphor for the decline of religious authority and the shift towards secularism, reason, and scientific thought. Nietzsche saw this as both a crisis and an opportunity—on one hand, it meant the loss of a moral framework that many had relied on, leading to potential nihilism (the belief that life has no inherent meaning). On the other hand, Nietzsche thought it opened the door for individuals to create their own values and meaning in life, rather than relying on external religious or societal structures.
McKinsley Slicker 005
I agree with what you said about Nietzsche on his statement regarding the death of God. That was how I viewed his statement too. I'm not too sure if nihilism would be the end point of adopting his statement, however, I definitely agree that it could potentially lead to nihilism.
DeleteI think the point of James’s story was to highlight his pragmatic view on truth. I have been in those metaphysical type discussions, to be honest they don’t really retain much space in my memory. I’d assume for this very pragmatic reason. Typically, they end in considering every position, giving an educated guess, shrugging our shoulders, and moving on with life.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like Nietzsche believed that Christian values came from a place of envy. I don’t particularly believe that to be true. But I think it makes sense if you stop considering God as a present piece of faith.
The point of James’s squirrel story was to convey the practical consequences that pragmatism is concerned with. Simply put, if there is no practical difference in the factors involved, then there is no right or wrong answer. The idea of what circling means in this example is highly debatable and determining what is right is purely subjective. A great modern example of a debate similar to this that was popular in my childhood was the debate whether or not water is wet. Some people would argue water must be wet since it makes things wet and has a wet sensation. Others would disagree, saying water itself cannot be wet, it can only make things wet. At the end of the day, the answer depends on what you define as wet and there are no great stakes in determining which it is. In a more metaphysical sense, the debate whether or not the color I see is the same color you see (not in a color blind sense). My red could be what I see as blue for you but there is no clear way to ever test this since my red will always look red to me and your red will always look like your red.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe determining what is right is purely subjective?
DeleteI think determining what is right is purely subjective, yes. Morals vary widely from group to group. There are people who live by different moral codes all around the world and have been all throughout history.
Delete1. The point of James squirrels story is about pragmatism and how the answer depends on what the question and definition is. I don't think I've ever been in a metaphysical dispute, at least not one I can remember of.
ReplyDelete2. C.S pierce was the one that said that if we can run all the experiments and investigations we wanted, then the truth is what we would have. A word that his name would rhyme with would be “curse”. It implies that the present status of what we consider to be truth would be accurate since it has been proven or there are many experiments, research, and observations being done about it.
3. Bertrand Russell said that James theory of truth was based on the effect it had on the believer for believing in something so he criticized the idea, comparing it to kids believing in Santa Claus. I think he was being fair because he does bring a valid point.
7. The Ubermensch is a fictional futuristic person who goes beyond traditional moral codes and develops new values, comparable to a next step in human’s development. The author of LHP, Nigel, finds this kind of idealized man to be concerning as it appears to be supportive of individuals who see themselves as “above” any sort of rules and morals in favor of their own interests or what they see as right. As mentioned in the text, this type of rhetoric most likely influenced groups such as the Nazi party, and further I would add, other hate groups such as the Proud Boys. I too am fearful of people who believe they are flawless or above it all. There is a reason most villains in modern fiction are written this way. While going against the grain and not conforming to norms is not bad, when you start to think you are better than everyone else and are without fault is where things get messy.
ReplyDelete1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
ReplyDeleteThe point of James's squirrel story is that debates should depend on definitions. It focuses on pragmatism, which is how certain definitions are useful in certain situations.
2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) What does it imply about the present status of what we now consider true?
Charles Sanders Pierce is the one who said that. This implies that everything we consider true now could actually be false or only a temporary truth.
3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
He argued that it made truth depend on what is useful rather than what is really true, in other words he believed that James's theory of truth was confusing truth with faith.
1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
ReplyDeleteWilliam James's "squirrel story" is a famous example he uses to illustrate the difference between two types of philosophical approaches: the pragmatist and the intellectualist.
the story is about two people who argue whether a squirrel in a tree is an "object" or an "experience." The intellectualist would get bogged down in the details of the nature of the squirrel, while the pragmatist would focus on how the squirrel's existence and interaction with the world could be useful in everyday life. James's point is that philosophy should be practical and about how ideas help us navigate the world, rather than getting stuck in abstract, endless arguments.
As for being involved in a "metaphysical dispute"—I don't get caught up in arguments or disputes. Disputes often get resolved by finding common ground, questioning assumptions, and focusing on what's practically useful, just like James suggests.
Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche believed that Christian values, such as humility, meekness, and self-sacrifice, were born out of a reaction to power structures in society. He argued that Christianity's emphasis on values like turning the other cheek and valuing suffering was a way to cope with the harshness of life and the domination of the powerful.
I think that his view raises interesting questions about how morality develops and what kinds of values society should encourage. I don't necessarily think that Christianity was born as a means of reacting to the power struggles. This religion has much deeper layers than that is deeply connected to the idea of love—loving God, loving others, and spreading love and kindness in the world, also living a life of service, humility, and faith.
3. Russell criticized James’s theory of truth, believing it suggested that believing whatever makes you feel good is true. This wasn’t entirely fair.
ReplyDelete6. Nietzsche believed Christian values came from "slave morality." which is a response of the oppressed to their lack of power. In contrast to the "master morality" which consists of strength, pride, and nobility.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
ReplyDeleteHe thought that there were multiple reasons as to why people believed in God such as:
. The belief in God was tied to early childhood experiences, especially the relationship with one's father.
. Religious beliefs fulfilled emotional and psychological needs.
. The belief that early human societies created religious systems to impose moral order and to alleviate fear and anxiety about natural events and death.
. God, as a father figure, fulfills both the longing for authority and the wish to transcend the earthly father figure.
My belief is that he can be right to an extent but not as blatant as he described. Religion is used and practiced for many reasons, and his point can come off as dismissive. In some cases, Freud’s theory might apply to those who view religion through a more psychological or emotional lens, where the need for comfort, security, and answers to life’s existential questions might indeed play a significant role in belief. For others, the motivations for religious belief might be far more diverse and not limited to his explanation.