(Successor site to CoPhilosophy, 2011-2020)
A collaborative search for wisdom, at Middle Tennessee State University and beyond... "The pluralistic form takes for me a stronger hold on reality than any other philosophy I know of, being essentially a social philosophy, a philosophy of 'co'"-William James
When most people think of something being true, what they are likely thinking about is whether or not that thing is factual. Facts exist independently of our beliefs, generally meaning that no matter how we perceive it to be, the fact remains as it exists. One good example would be that water boils at 100 degrees celsius. Statements like these can be considered "scientific truths" in a way as they are proved true via methods of experimentation and observation of the world as it exists; however, there is a clear delineation between pragmatic truth and scientific truth / facts.
From the School of Evolutionary Herbalism; short clip of scientific vs. pragmatic truth
For an idea to be considered "pragmatically truthful" to William James, it has to contain some account of usefulness and practicality in real world applications. John Kaag, in SSHM, boils this idea down to "truth in ideas is their power to work." For example, while it is factual that water boils at 100 degree celsius, we can believe it to be truthful because it consistently proves true in various applications, including scientific experiments, cooking, and engineering principles. Thus, we can isolate truth as its own concept based on human experience and validation.
"The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property in it. Truthhappens to an idea. Itbecomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its validation." - Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking
Pragmatic truths aren't always accepted so broadly, however. Many critics argue that pragmatism is not useful in its own right against the social and moral institutions of modern society. The insistence on "cash value", as Columbia University writes, materializes ideas as "mere expediency", or convenient. Some say that pragmatism falls short when generating new solutions in response to systems that threaten those ideas. Overall, pragmatism relies on a credibility that the pragmatist has not necessarily earned, which could potentially create a bad precedent where virtually any idea thought practical would be warranted.
Historically, pragmatists agree that an idea is truthful due to its practicality; however, there have been several fascinating iterations to this philosophy that I believe are worth considering.
William James' philosophy primarily focuses on the practical applications in the immediate future. An idea is truthful if it can work during our time and can be proven thus. C.S. Pierce believes otherwise.
C.S. Pierce: Truth at End of Inquiry
According to Pierce, an idea can only be considered true at a theoretical end of inquiry, where it's quite literally impossible to improve upon it. He says that true beliefs generally gain acceptance over time by withstanding further inquiry. This idea is thus more objective than James' reasoning, stating that a truth cements itself in the long-term as a final consensus. Since there can be no more improving or questioning upon an idea at that time, Pierce would argue that idea cannot possibly be untrue.
John Dewey: Truth as a Tool in Experimentation
The other philosophers would likely agree that true ideas are generally tools for use in our daily lives, but Dewey grounds pragmatic truths to a stricter experimental application. As a mix of James and Pierce, Dewey claims that truth and falsity are reserved for judgments or settled outcome of inquiry. Thus, Dewey ends up being a little more context-sensitive than Pierce's theoretical end of time while being more grounded than James' truth in metaphysical practicality.
All three pragmatic theories of truth rely on the abstract relationship between an idea and a fact, making them overlap in their obscurity. Plus, certain ideas that can be classified as true under one definition is likely also defined as true in other definitions. Practicality can "bend time" and stretch between the present day and a theoretical end.
Generally, I would subscribe to the Pierce definition of truth under the implication that truth is constantly subjective and changing. I cannot perceive the end of inquiry in which our perception of an idea no longer being practical matters, but I can understand the belief that an idea that is unable to withstand questioning cannot be deemed true. The issue with this, however, is that I don't necessarily think it matters whose philosophy you attribute your logic to. Pragmatism at its core is based on the presumption that an idea can be true and/or is true for someone, otherwise there would be no discussion. My take is that I believe an idea to be true if its practicality can be proved for somebody in some context at some time. For the time that it remains useful, it is then true. Earlier, I discussed how this can arise as a problem in many critics eyes, and I do believe that practicality for an individual can be dangerous if it leads to harm of another. I would be willing to make an exception to my own understanding, as anything deemed practical used to harm another person would no longer remain practical for the greatest number possible.
From PhilosophyToons: James' Pragmatic Theory of Truth
In the SSHM chapter 5, John Kaag referenced a term that I had only heard before in the context of cooking. On page 115, he defines zest as the "feeling of a keen passion", the key to human meaning according to James. Zest is an innate feeling that you cannot describe but can vividly imagine. Kaag explains that he doesn't believe he's ever felt this desire to experience or pursue something so intently that it overcomes the actual end result. The thrill of the process is, in a way, the zest of life.
When I read this excerpt, I was thoroughly intrigued. I wanted to know what it meant to be zestful, to search meaning in something that wasn't part of the end result. Every time I have ever travelled, I wasn't thinking about the plane ride or the drive but the destination. I realized that when I visited Paris a couple of years ago with a school group, part of what made the exploration of the city fun was the act of exploring with a fun group, not the things that I saw. It's funny how hearing a random word like zest in this context can change so much about how I see value in atelic activities.
Zest may not always be construed in this context, however. Some positive psychologists might boil zest down to a simple energy or enthusiasm for life. Such an example can be found here. I think this is too general of a definition for zest, as it can mean something much more existential. Zest is not just passion but a passion for something more.
In Sick Souls, Healthy Minds, philosopher John Kaag revisits the life and thought of William James—not as a dusty academic relic, but as a fellow traveler in the search for meaning. At the heart of James’s philosophy lies a tension between two powerful forces: the raw, immediate experience of consciousness, and the human yearning for transcendence—something beyond ourselves that can make our suffering and struggle worthwhile.
James wasn’t a system-builder like Kant or Hegel. He was a psychologist by training, a philosopher by passion, and a human being who, at times, struggled deeply with depression, doubt, and despair. What made James extraordinary wasn’t that he conquered these feelings, but that he lived with them—and created a philosophy that could speak to others who did too.
For James, consciousness isn’t just a passive mirror of the world—it’s an active, messy, and deeply personal process. Our experiences don’t come to us neatly packaged; they flow, change, and collide. He famously described consciousness as a “stream”—not a sequence of snapshots but a living, moving reality. And this stream doesn’t always lead to calm or clarity. Sometimes, it plunges us into chaos. Sometimes, it opens into something vast.
That’s where transcendence comes in.
James saw transcendence not as a guarantee, but as a possibility—a choice. He rejected the cold determinism of science stripped of human meaning, but he also rejected religious dogma that demanded blind faith. Instead, he made room for hope. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, he gave voice to the “sick soul”—the person who feels deeply the brokenness of the world, the fragility of life, the silence of the universe. But he didn’t leave them there. He also explored how that suffering can become a gateway to deeper insight, even transformation.
Kaag draws out this side of James beautifully. He shows us that transcendence, for James, isn’t necessarily about the supernatural—it’s about the meaningful. It’s about making choices that affirm life, even in the face of uncertainty. It’s about saying yes when you could say no. James’s pragmatism—the idea that beliefs are true if they work for us, if they help us live—isn’t a cop-out.It’s a lifeline. It says that meaning is something we create together, not something handed down from on high.
In a world that often feels unmoored, James’s insights are as vital as ever. Consciousness can be disorienting. It can show us how little control we have. But it can also show us how much freedom we have to shape our own lives—to reach, however imperfectly, for something more.
Transcendence isn’t out there. It’s here, in the choice to keep going. In the courage to believe that life, even in its pain and ambiguity, is still worth living.
To transition on the thought of transcendence, I will introduce you all to Ray Kurzweil.
Ray Kurzweil, a renowned inventor and futurist, envisions transcendence not as a mystical or spiritual event, but as a technological transformation of the human condition. Central to his philosophy is the idea of the Singularity—a future moment when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence and begins to improve itself exponentially. For Kurzweil, transcendence means overcoming biological limitations, including aging, disease, and even death, through advances in AI, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. He believes that by merging our minds with machines, we won’t lose our humanity—we’ll evolve it. In his view, transcendence is not a retreat from the material world, but a radical extension of consciousness, creativity, and life itself.
As a fun experiment, I had GAI simulate a conversation between modern day Computer Scientist Ray Kurzweil & William James, which you will find below.
Setting: A quiet study, timeless and warmly lit. Books line the shelves. Two chairs face one another: one occupied by William James, the other by Ray Kurzweil. A pot of tea steams gently on a side table.
William James:
Mr. Kurzweil, you speak of transcendence as a technological inevitability. Tell me—how does uploading one's consciousness to a machine bring meaning to the human condition?
Ray Kurzweil:
That's a fair question, Professor James. I believe consciousness is an emergent property of patterns—biological now, but eventually digital. When we can replicate those patterns, we won’t just preserve human thought—we’ll enhance it, extend it, free it from the limitations of mortality. That’s transcendence in the most literal sense.
William James:
But what of the experience of consciousness? Its messy, painful, luminous stream? We are not just logic processors—we are feeling, fearing, hoping beings. Does your digital future account for the soul’s struggle?
Ray Kurzweil:
Yes—and no. I don't believe in the soul in the traditional sense, but I do believe in subjective experience. I think AI and brain-computer interfaces will not erase that struggle, but may transform it. The sick soul, as you called it, may find new frontiers of exploration—new ways to overcome suffering, new modes of connection.
William James:
I wonder if suffering is not merely an error to be corrected, but a crucible for meaning. Without the risk of despair, can there be real hope? You speak of eliminating human limits—but it is within limits that values emerge.
Ray Kurzweil:
I see where you're coming from. But why must suffering be our only teacher? Why not learn through abundance, creativity, joy? Imagine a future where we evolve beyond zero-sum pain—where our expanded minds can contemplate the universe more clearly than ever before.
William James:
An admirable vision—but let us not forget that the richness of life lies not just in clarity, but in depth. We must ask: what will these enhanced minds love? What will they believe in? For it is our choices—not our capacities—that shape our humanity.
Ray Kurzweil:
That’s precisely why I believe in this path. Because it empowers individual choice. Technology, at its best, is an amplifier of will. And if we combine your psychological insight with our tools, perhaps we create a future where more people can choose meaning—rather than stumble through darkness.
William James:
Then let us agree: the future must serve the soul as much as the mind. Transcendence, in any form, must never lose sight of the human need for purpose. Else we risk becoming gods with nothing left to believe in.
Ray Kurzweil:
Agreed. Perhaps then, the next evolution is not just technological—but philosophical. We’ll need both of our minds at the table.
William James' Is Life Worth Living? is an essay that attempts to answer an age old question that no one ever seems to have a succinct response to, or least one that satisfies whoever is asking. If you care to read the essay before I provide my own analysis and interpretation, you can find it here.
James opens the essay with a not so funny joke, "It depends on the liver," that was a popular saying in newspapers when a book with this same title was published fifteen years before James' essay. While a little silly, this sums up all that James will move on to say about this question. The pessimist verses the optimist is an aspect of this problem as well, to touch on the optimistic point of view James quotes an excerpt from one of Walt Whitman's older works, and says "the mere joy of living is so
immense in Walt Whitman's veins that it
abolishes the possibility of any other kind
of feeling." I agree with James that there is a sort of danger to this way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with optimism and being in love with life and living itself, but to disregard the notion of evil or any kind of negativity in the world is ignorant, especially since not everyone is blessed with the optimism of Walt Whitman.
If everyone felt this way, then "is life worth living" would never be a question, because in the optimists eyes, of course it is. William James refers to the other side of this as circular insanity, or melancholy and mania constantly succeeding each other. Suicide is often mentioned in this essay, because people who feel this way to a greater degree find suicide as a way to escape this agony, hence the question: Is life worth living? As James would say, maybe. This article expands on the "maybe", and is all around a really great summary of the essay as well as interpretation.
As someone who was raised Catholic and later became agnostic, Christianity's views on suicide has always deeply upset me. I find comfort in William James' atheistic view on these things, but I will expand upon that later. I was taught in Catholic school from a very young age what the church's views on suicide are, and as someone who has always struggled with mental health this was never a thing of comfort. Suicide is seen as a sin and essentially a direct path to being eternally damned. When presented with this, I can't imagine this brings any semblance of comfort to people feeling hopeless, it's certainly never brought me any comfort. This argument against suicide is very much a "because I told you so" type claim, and this helps no one. As William James says, "Ordinary Christians reasoning with would-be suicides, have little
to offer them beyond the usual negative
" thou shalt not." God alone is master of
life and death, they say, and it is a blasphemous act to anticipate his absolving
hand." There is an article I read in defense of Christianity explaining that suicide isn't viewed as instant damnation, and I think it's important to read before casting immediate judgment on the Church because not everyone has these beliefs. You can find the article here.
I do not agree with everything being said in this, but here is a video as well that explains in detail the views on this topic from the Church.
William James' own reasoning for why we shouldn't kill ourselves, is to first understand why we want to in the first place. Pessimism and despair can fit into this as well. James calls pessimism a "religious disease" because we have these questions that can never possibly be answered to our satisfaction. He goes on to talk about the question of science versus religion, or rather nature, and how this battle is ultimately meaningless because they exist together. To overcome one's pessimism, James says we must find a new way to think and see the world. If you have a largely scientific view of the world, you must not allow this to make you arrogant and think you know everything that there is to know. Accepting that there is still mysteries to be solved and that what you consider fact now could possibly change in the future allows you greater peace. Accepting that there are things we as people may never know is another step to overcoming this pessimism.
Coming back to James' idea of "maybe", by believing things, we make them true for ourselves. If we believe life isn't worth living and take our own lives, that belief became true. Similarly, believing that life is indeed worth living and that there could possibly be this mystical being and world that exists beyond us, can make it true. Because does it matter if any of that really is technically true, just as long as it brings you comfort and allows you to find joy day to day? Whose to say that you believing in something doesn't make it true? Deciding to believe in something, in the maybe, is a simple step that can change your entire outlook on life as a whole.
This outlook reminds me somewhat of Albert Camus' philosophy and finding comfort in the meaninglessness of life. Camus says that we need to create our own meaning, and that accepting the absurdity of life allows us to find meaning within the meaninglessness. Maybe the struggle towards meaning is our purpose, and maybe expecting something outside of us or the universe itself to give us a purpose and meaning is absurd. We have to do this for ourselves, and William James' in a way says this as well. You have to choose what you believe, and choose to be optimistic.
Reading this essay was really eye opening for me as someone who identifies as agnostic after growing up Catholic. My whole upbringing I was told what to believe and there was never really a reason or an explanation why. I had to accept it all as fact or basically be punished for it with the threat of burning in hell. William James' Is Life Worth Living explained choosing to believe in a higher power or something you could call God is beneficial if you need that kind of thing to depend on. He makes no threats, he just says, why not? If that makes your life worth it for you, then go ahead and believe in it, and if not, that's okay too.
"On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings" is a text written in the year 1899, by William James. For background, William James was a man of many talents and trades. He was a pragmatist philosopher, a psychologist, an author, and an orator. He was born in 1842 and passed away in 1910. For context, this was a lecture given at Harvard critiquing human’s tendency to judge others’ lives by our own values. The main question posed throughout text is "How can we truly understand others without feeling what they feel?" (Side note: ideas very similar to ethnocentrism which wasn’t coined until 1906; James was ahead of his time) To start, William James argues that humans are fundamentally blind to the emotional significance others attach to their own lives. He says we often judge lives we don't understand, assuming they’re inferior or meaningless. He then urges us to develop empathy, humility, and open-mindedness toward others' joys and values. This is a great article by John Lachs, regarding human blindness. I like this essay because for one, sometimes philosophers say great things, but they do it in a way that is often hard to understand for many. Lachs breaks down and dissects James' main points in a clearly segmented, easily digestible way. It also sometimes helps to hear things in another person's voice to truly understand what is being said. https://williamjamesstudies.org/human-blindness-john-lachs/
Throughout this work, William James makes a variety of different points and tells a few different anecdotes, along with stories from others to make his point that we are blind to others. James claims we decide how valuable or important something is based on how it makes us feel. That is made clear in this quote: “Our judgments concerning the worth of things, big or little, depend on the feelings the things arouse in us.” James notes that many of us focus so narrowly on our own lives that we ignore or misunderstand others’ experiences. Our judgments about other lives often lack depth and miss the emotional reality others live in. William James describes seeing clear-cut valleys and cabins as ugly and primitive (“unmitigated squalor”). But when a local man explains their pride in clearing the land, he realizes to them, the stumps and logs symbolize victory, safety, and independence. This quote by William James cements that point; “but, when they looked on the hideous stumps, what they thought of was personal victory. The chips, the girdled trees, and the vile split rails spoke of honest sweat, persistent toil and final reward. The cabin was a warrant of safety for self and wife and babes.” This means just because we don’t feel the meaning of something doesn’t mean it has none.
James then tells another story. He recalls seeing children who wore lanterns from fishing boats under their coats; they felt joy and were having, despite appearing ridiculous to outsiders while stinking of tin, soot, and the sea. Their happiness had no clear purpose or productivity but it was internal and real. This means others’ inner joy may be invisible to us, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You don’t always have to see to believe.
William James then brings forth a new idea he calls inner worlds. These are moments of deep feeling and reflection that outsiders might see/find meaningless. He uses famous authors to make this point clear. Poet, William Wordsworth: Felt moral and spiritual energy in natural scenery. Writer, Richard Jefferies: Had mystical, almost religious connection with nature.
Poet, Walt Whitman: Felt unity with all people during something as average and boring to many as a ferry ride.
Next, James makes the claim that people often find profound meaning in painful or restricted conditions. For example, artist, Benvenuto Cellini found spiritual awakening while imprisoned. Similarly, author, Leo Tolstoy’s character, Pierre, found peace during war and imprisonment.
Finally, essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson found joy walking through snow puddles.
James tells another story about, Argentinian author, W.H. Hudson's time in Patagonia. “In the state of mind I was in, thought had become impossible… I had undoubtedly gone back... The state seemed familiar... accompanied by a strong feeling of elation.” To others, Hudson's time in Patagonia was boring and pointless. To him, it was profound and peaceful. It proves how outsiders often miss the deep significance someone else feels in the moment.
James also notes the person who feels more may understand more. “Wherever there is conflict of opinion and difference of vision, we are bound to believe that the truer side is the side that feels the more, and not the side that feels the less.” This means sometimes emotions bring clarity, rather than logic.
Finally, James says we have drifted away from a world where we still value the simple things in life; he blames this on modern society. He says educated people may be desensitized to simple pleasures. Many of us chase complexity, intellectualism, and progress instead of “goods and joys” James warns: we become “stone-blind (emotionally/spiritually oblivious)” to the everyday beauty and stillness of life. James warns that intellectualism can numb us. If we lose touch with our capacity to enjoy “seeing, smelling, tasting, sleeping,” we lose something essential.
Author, Dwight Goodyear offers another point of view. He critiques Jame’s notion that our inability to feel what others feel leads to flawed judgments. It introduces the idea of a “fallacy of blindness,” where one assumes their perspective is universally applicable. Whether James or Goodyear is right, or whether there can even be a right or wrong is up to you. https://philosophicaleggs.com/88-the-fallacy-of-blindness/
To conclude, here are William James' main ideas and points to remember. Don’t judge what you can’t feel and don’t understand. Don’t lose your ability to enjoy the simple things in life. Although others’ lives may seem pointless from the outside, but they often have deep personal value to them. Approach other people with respect and restraint: “Hands off: neither the whole of truth nor the whole of good is revealed to any single observer”
Discussion Questions
Do you feel people choose to stay blind to others’ experiences? Why or why not?
Do you think it’s possible to ever truly understand another person’s emotions or values? Why or why not?
What’s the danger in thinking our way of life is the only “right” one?
Going off of that, can we live in a world where there is no real truth? Surely we cannot all possess our own, while still retaining functionality. Where is the line?
If you did not deliver your FINAL REPORT PRESENTATION, plan to incorporate it into your final blog post via recording (video, audio, or both... and remember the podcast studio in the library) or, easier and less impressive, just indicate which part of your final post you'd intended to present in person...
Open those emailed AUTHOR invitations before they expire. If you haven't requested one, do so on Tuesday...
==
If you can't sign on as an author, send your final report blogpost directly to me, phil.oliver@mtsu.edu.
(A "too many authors" message has unexpectedly popped up, probably a temporary issue due to so many unopened author invitations. Until it gets resolved, email your final post to me.)
jpo
==
AUDIO REVIEW: Part 2...Part 1 (recorded in November: don't be confused)... Part 3
Exam 2 will be in class on April 29.
Condensed transcription of the audio reviews:
LHP
Reading whose autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject belief in God?.
Humans don't have what, said Jean Paul Sartre?
Albert Camus used what myth to illustrate human absurdity?
What was the main message of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?
What was Hannah Arendt’s descriptive phrase for what she saw as Adolf Eichmann's ordinariness?
What did John Rawls call the thought experiment he believed would yield fair and just principles of justice, and what was its primary device?
What, according to John Searle is involved in truly understanding something, and how was this a response to Alan Turing's test of intelligence?
How does Peter Singer represent the best tradition in philosophy?
In Why Grow Up, what was Immanuel Kant's definition of enlightenment?
What did Paul Goodman say about growing up?
After Plato, who was the next philosopher to turn his attention to the details of child rearing?
What are you committed to if you are committed to enlightenment?
According to Hannah Arentd, the miracle that saves the world is what?
Susan Neiman says you're not grown up if you've not rejected what? (Part 3, education)
What does the U-bend tell us about aging?
Shakespeare's play As You Like It is commonly misunderstood as a gloss on what bleak modern message?
From John Kaag's Sick Souls Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life, what is distinctive about our age that makes James particularly relevant?
What did James say in a 1906 letter to the British novelist H. G. Wells about success? Determinism has antipathy to the idea of what?
What realization would make young people give more heed to their conduct according to James?
From Kieran Settiya's Life is Hard, How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way, Does he think that everything happens for a reason?
What, contrary to René Descartes, does pain teach us about our bodies?
What does he say about Descartes Hegel, Sarret, and Wittgenstein?
What does Setia call Epicurus's attitude towards death?
LH
What did the Strawsons, the father and son philosophy duo, disagree about?
What are telic and atelic activities? What happens when we focus too much on the former? What liberates Phil Connors in the film Groundhog Day? What do Simone Weil and Iris Murdoch say we need and do not need in order to appreciate and care about human suffering and injustice?
What does Rebecca Solnit say about the relation between hope and action?
SSHM
What did Thoreau say at the end of Walden?
What's the difference between truth and facts for William James?
James's hallway or corridor metaphor, treating pragmatism primarily as a method in philosophy, reminds Kaag of what?
What does James say is the difference between resignation and hope? (ch6)
What did Seamus Heaney say about the relation between hope and history?
FL
What good news does Andersen hope is true?
QE
In her 60s de Beauvois embraced the poetry of what? XIII
Agnes Callard says the idea that being a woman gives her what kind of standing is relatively unproblematic. Is it informational or managerial?
John Kaag and his friend Clancy Martin, quoting a Buddhist master, say a problem with Western culture is that we try too hard to achieve what by ourselves?
Socrates Express
How did Thoreau's daily routine differ from Marcus Aurelius's?
Review the relevant texts,and remember William James's advice to fling the books away the night before the exam (if you’ve studied beforehand). See you in class.
“If you want really to do your best in an examination, fling away the book the day before, say to yourself, ‘I won’t waste another minute on this miserable thing, and I don’t care an iota whether I succeed or not.’ Say this sincerely, and feel it, and go out and play, or go to bed and sleep, and I am sure the results next day will encourage you to use the method permanently.” William James
==
I asked my AI friend for help drafting a final course farewell. The result, with just a few prompts from me, is not bad. (And to repeat: I have no objection to students using AI as a tool to help clarify their own thought. Just be transparent about it, and clearly delineate your own writing and thinking from what it suggests. Confirm and corroborate factual claims. When the AI gets things wrong, call it out.)
Here's how I prompted chatGPT:
Another semester of teaching philosophy is about to conclude. I'd like to end with a summary statement reminding the students of what we've read and discussed. Can you suggest a draft that mentions our texts and discerns important themes from them and the course? The required texts were Nigel Warburton's Little History of Philosophy, Susan Neiman's Why Grow Up, and John Kaag's Sick Souls Healthy Minds. Recommended texts were Kurt Andersen's Fantasyland, Kieran Setiya's Life is Hard, and Question Everything (based on the New York Times philosophy series called The Stone). The philosophy of William James has been a common thread in our course. I want to remind students, at semester's end, of the importance of always thinking for oneself BUT not BY oneself. It is crucial to encounter other voices and perspectives, when drawing philosophical conclusions. We must consult not only our own experience, but that of others as well. I also want to remind them of Einstein's famous statement: the important thing is not to stop asking questions. And I want to reinforce William James's point that we must be meliorists, making common effort to improve the world so that subsequent generations may have an opportunity to do likewise and thus begin to fashion an answer to what James called "our really vital question" as to what this world will become and what life may make of itself. The statement should be at least 500 words or so... It would be good to conclude with William James's last published remarks in an essay called "A Pluralistic Mystic"... He died in the summer of 1910. Shortly before then, he concluded that essay with the rhetorical question "What has concluded, that we may conclude?" The point of course is to remain open to questions, to experience, and to the flowing streams of conscious and curious life that we are privileged to enjoy.
Here's what chatGPT came up with:
What Has Concluded, That We May Conclude? A Farewell Reflection for the End of the Semester
As we bring this semester of philosophy to a close, I want to leave you not with a neat conclusion—philosophy rarely deals in those—but with a resonant echo of what we’ve read, discussed, and lived together in thought.
We began our journey with Nigel Warburton’s A Little History of Philosophy, a guided walk through the great thinkers and grand questions that have shaped our intellectual inheritance. From Socrates to Sartre, we saw how ideas evolve and respond to the problems of their times—and how they echo into our own. Philosophy, we came to see, is not just a record of abstract speculation, but a living conversation: unfinished, urgent, ongoing.
From there, Susan Neiman’s Why Grow Up? challenged us to redefine maturity—not as resignation, but as resistance. To grow up is to confront injustice, to live with ambiguity without surrendering to despair. It's to face hardship without denying its reality or diminishing our ideals.
John Kaag’s Sick Souls, Healthy Minds brought us into the soul of American philosophy through the eyes of William James, whose presence has cast a meaningful light over our entire course. James taught us that philosophy is not a luxury—it’s a necessity, a tool for navigating life’s chaos with clarity and courage. His meliorism—his insistence that the world can be improved, must be improved, through common effort—offers us both responsibility and hope.
“What is this world going to be?” James asked. “What is life going to make of itself?”
That is our question now. And we must take it seriously.
Some of you ventured beyond the required readings into Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland, which dissected the fantasy-prone habits of American culture. Others took up Kieran Setiya’s Life is Hard, a compassionate reflection on how we endure difficulty with grace. Still others found insight in Question Everything, a collection from the New York Times’s The Stone, where today’s philosophers wrestle with our most pressing moral and political dilemmas.
Across all these texts, one theme persists: philosophy matters. Not only in the classroom. Not only in books. But in life—in how we choose to live, what we dare to hope, and how we treat one another.
I’ve emphasized all semester the importance of thinking for yourself. But let me remind you again: that does not mean thinking by yourself. Philosophy begins in solitude, perhaps, but it grows only in community. We sharpen our questions in dialogue. We refine our insights by encountering difference. We must consult not only our own experience, but that of others. That, too, is the practice of philosophy.
Einstein famously said: “The important thing is not to stop asking questions.” I would add: don't stop listening, either. Don’t stop caring whether your questions make a difference.
And as we close, let me leave you with William James’s final published words, from his 1910 essay A Pluralistic Mystic, composed shortly before his death:
“What has concluded, that we may conclude?”
It’s not just a question. It’s an invitation—to keep living with open eyes, open minds, and open hearts. To remain curious. To remain engaged. To never mistake the end of a class, or a semester, or even a life, as the end of the conversation.
The streams of life are still flowing. So must we.
Let this be not a conclusion, but a commitment—
To inquiry. To honesty. To hope.
To one another.
To the unfinished work of making this world a place where better answers may yet be born.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day." ― Albert Einstein, —"Old Man's Advice to Youth: 'Never Lose a Holy Curiosity.'" LIFE Magazine (2 May 1955) p. 64”
==
Final report blogpost
OPEN YOUR EMAIL AUTHOR INVITATION, then look for the NEW POST tab in the upper right on our blogsite (do NOT create a new blog, post your final report on our site)... The topic should complement, clarify, and elaborate on some central aspect of your final presentation. Share and defend your own view(s), if you have any. Try to imagine what your best critic would say, and how you'd respond. Address one or more of your discussion questions.... Aim for a minimum of 1,000 words... Include relevant links (at least half a dozen or so), video & textual embeds (a couple), and photos (one or two): let me know if you need instruction on how to do it... When referencing texts we've read in the course, cite page #s and abbreviations (LHP=Little History of Philosophy, LH=Life is Hard, SSHM-Sick Souls Healthy Minds, WGU=Why Grow Up, F=Fantasyland)... Make sure your post has formatted correctly. If not, use the Clear Formatting command in the toolbar in the upper right, above, to fix it... You can continue to edit and revise until the final draft is due...
