Injustice and How We Should Handle It ( Chapter 5 Life Is Hard) Jordan Martin 007

     Racial inequality, senseless violence, uneven wealth distribution, and corrupt politics are a few of the most pressing injustices our society faces today. The definition of injustice from Merriam Webster Dictionary is, “an absence of justice, violation of rights or rights of another.” Time after time our news headlines read of mass shootings and other terrible crimes that happen far too often. Kieran Setiya writes in chapter five of his book Life is Hard that the headlines are swarmed with news such as the economy crashing, climate change, fallen democracy, and in his words for a change of subject, a black man shot by the police. Unfortunately, all of these topics are subjects brought to our attention time after time and it seems like nothing ever changes. In 2023 we face issues such as basic healthcare rights for women being taken away, mass shootings in schools, and things like discrimination, that wreak havoc on society.  

I am going to begin with racial inequality and how the effects it has manifested can still be seen in society today. Any unbiased history course will teach you about how we actually rose to be one of the most dominating economies in the world. While settlers were colonizing the United States, our ancestors partook in horrendous acts including killing thousands of indigenous people, seizing land by force, and the enslavement of people. The same people who had spoken out for taxation without representation and wanting freedom also called blacks property and fought for their “right to property” during the Civil War.  

According to the Article, Income and Wealth In the United States: An Overview of Recent Data, the median household income for a white, non-Hispanic person was $78,912. The median head household income for a black person however on average was only $48,175. You can read more about that in the article linked here as well. On page 146 of LH, Iris Marion Young, and her idea of structural injustice is introduced. Structural injustice in this particular instance is “injustice that is not localized in unjust attitudes or actions- but emerges interactively.” She explains with the example that American systems have been put in place that sustain our racist history. This is further supported by the education system in the United States. Inequality in Public School Funding: Key Issues & Solutions for Closing the Gap, is an article that further explains how differences in poor and wealthy areas of the country create funding gaps leaving some schools in very poor shape with few resources.  

Another pressing topic our society faces today is senseless violence. Kiara Alfonseca posted an article in April of 2023, and by the 10 of April there were 146 mass shootings. In the article it stated that there were 30 mass shootings just in the first seventeen days of April, and by that point there were more mass shootings than days in the year. Read that last line again. Linked in the next sentence are two shootings that occurred in the same week miles apart over simple mistakes. First the shooting of Ralph Lauren, who mistakenly went to the wrong house while trying to pick up his siblings, and then two teenage cheerleaders who had gotten into and out of the wrong car after a game. We also saw very recently how racism can show up in politics when Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, and Gloria Johnson protested for gun reform with the constituents of Tennessee. Although all three representatives participated in the protest, only the two young black representatives were expelled. When the woman was asked in an interview after she was allowed to stay in office for the very same reason the other two men were expelled, she even said herself it might have to do with the color of our skin.”  

On page 133 of LH Setiya writes, “The question is not what to do when morality and self-interest come apart, but how do we respond to the injustice of the world?” Many philosophers have different ideas of a “just society” and how to handle the injustices of the world. Simone Weil for example, was a French philosopher who escaped World War 2 with her family. Weil’s was always a very empathetic child often turning down sweets and luxuries because others didn’t have the opportunity. Simone grew up and became a teacher, however even then she gave her salary to the needy. During her lifetime Simone helped fund a school, took part in marches and strikes, and she campaigned against fascists. Eventually she died of starvation after she began rationing her food herself, although she did suffer from tuberculosis as well (134).  

Although I admire the strength and determination Simone Weil showed during her lifetime, I personally wouldn’t go as far as she did. In my opinion, taking part in marches, strikes, and other forms of peaceful protest is enough to try to combat the injustices of the world, without creating injustices for yourself, such as starvation. On page 157 of LH, Richard Hugo says, “Maybe the most important lesson one could teach, you are someone and you have a right to your life.” Setiya adds at the end of the line, “you have a right to your suffering too.” This quote really resonated with me as someone who has suffered from mental illness for a while now. Part of the beauty of being human is understanding pain and being able to sympathize with those who are hurting when we are well. Of course, someone, somewhere will always have it worse, but the issue with pain is just because someone else is hurting, it doesn’t make your pain hurt any less.  

                 

    One of the biggest ways I believe we can fight injustice in society today is by continuing to speak up when we know something is wrong. Peaceful protests, calling representatives, emailing leaders in office, and voting for the leaders you want in office is a great way to fight injustice legally and peacefully. We need to speak out about injustices that are normalized and make sure we remember we are all ultimately part of the same human race. It’s 2023, we should be talking about ways to save the Earth or continue our exploration into space, not continuing to manifest the bad parts of our history such as racism into politics. My hope is that the next generation continues the protests, marches, speaking up when they see something wrong, and most of all remembers to have empathy while we all try to navigate the next few years.  

 

Open your email author invitation please

There are still a lot of unopened invitations. You must open your invitation to become an author and post your report. Check your spam folder if you don't see it. 

Grief (Life Is Hard, Chapter 3)

 Grief (Life is Hard, Chapter 3)

by Andrew Lacy

Hello there! For this blog post, I'll be discussing the topic of grief, through the lens of the discussion presented by Chapter 3 of the book Life Is Hard by Kieran Setiya. The topic of grief is a vast, emotionally heavy, and intensely personal and complex topic for many reasons. It's not an emotion we feel, rather a process that we do, and as such, it's fluidity makes it a difficult topic to fully surmise in a blog post such as this.

However, hopefully using the information I've gathered in my readings, I can present various ideas surrounding the topic in a way that not only explains the various views on grief, but also possibly helps many of us navigate the process more smoothly in our own lives.

The Chapter starts off discussing Tig Notaro, a comedian who used humor to cope with the death of her mother. Due to the complex nature of grief, many of us use various aspects of our lives, creative endeavors, hobbies, or in more dire cases, unhealthy or destructive habits, all to cope with the changing process that is grief. Contrary to what many may believe, grief is not a static process. Grief itself can be filled with all kinds of emotions and feelings; moments of sorrow, anger, despair, or in Notaro's case, moments of light, levity, and depth. While I obviously can't speak to her experience (or anyone's for that matter) it feels fair to say that her comedy incorporating aspects of her grief wasn't just a way to distract herself, but also existed as a way to encapsulate and remember the light and positive aspects of her mother.

                                                                        Tig Notaro

Building on the fact that grief isn't a static process, there's no evidence that suggests that grief comes in the classic 5 stages many of us are familiar with ( Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance). Rather, George A Bonanno suggests the idea that grief comes in goes in more of a pattern of oscillating waves, with different feelings coming and going depending on time, certain stimuli, or a mixture of both. Speaking from some of friends' and family members' experiences, many have felt a wave of both nostalgia and positive reminiscence underscored by a profound longing and sadness, spurred on by a location or event reminding them of memories of a now deceased friend or family member.

Later in the chapter, Setiya begins to discuss what he considers to be more of the fallacies in the understanding and conception of grief, with one argument in particular being that much of Western philosophy sees grief as some sort of issue to be somehow fixed, "a problem to be solved. But grief is not a mistake; and philosophy should not disown it." He goes on from here to discuss a philosopher with a viewpoint on grief that he particularly disagrees with. This philosopher was the Greek figure "Epictetus", a man who used his stoic ideologies to combat the idea of grief. The general idea behind Epictetus' conception of grief is that every living being will eventually die some day in the future correct? If so, then one shouldn't concern themselves with the process of death, as in his eyes, it's a natural process that would be foolish to oppose or expect otherwise. 

Philosopher Henry James equates Epictetus' idea to the idea of "sour grapes"; if we can't have "it" (it in this case being the immortality or ability to prevent the death of loved ones) then we shouldn't want it. As James says, according to Epictetus, we shouldn't want to prevent the death of loved ones since it's an inherent inevitability, but James himself argues that while we shouldn't blame ourselves for the loss of loved ones, we should be be allowed to care about the loss of loved ones. "Stoicism may dull pain, but it does so by distracting us from the things that really matter." If we lose the ability to feel pain, the ability to be affected by injustice or sadness, not only does it make the idea of happiness comparatively less powerful, but it also can cause us to grow numb to the various injustices and mistreatment we face in reality, destroying our sense and drive for hope.

A more positive outlook on some of Epictetus' ideas

The chapter moves forward to discuss various fallacies and unexpected difficulties regarding the grieving process. One of the prime examples of this is the idea that grief can somehow be predicted or prepared for in some way, when that simply isn't the case. No matter how familiar you are with the concept of loss and grief, you'll never know how it truly feels and manifests until you yourself are forced to go through that process. Every aspect of grieving someone or something is intensely tied to the personal connection you held with them, and just as the connection you shared was wholly unique, so too is the feelings of loss you'll face whenever a death or loss comes to pass. 

Love is inextricable from the idea of grief. To grieve is to miss and feel intense pain, sorrow, or emptiness because you loved and valued someone so intensely. It's missing the ability to continue loving them and all the wonderful things they did when they were here. Getting a bit personal for a second, October of 2021 I lost my family dog, Friday. Christmas Eve of 2021, I lost my kitten named Alphonse. And this past October of 2022, I lost my other family dog, Zilla. I loved all 3 of them intensely for various reasons. Friday was the first family pet I vividly remember having, and I remember growing up alongside him. He was aloof yet excitable, soft yet sturdy. Alphonse was a healing presence overall. Such a sweetheart who looked and acted like a spoiled yet sweet little baby every chance he got. And Zilla was the definition of adorably excitable, always jumping around and shaking whenever she saw someone she liked. The individual losses of these 3 hurt not just because they'd passed away, but because I'd never be able to see them again, to play with them again, to love them again. 

The grief I went through and still in many ways continue to navigate after losing them is... certainly painful and tricky, but it's also a necessary process to move forward and heal. To allow myself to both miss their presence, but also to love and endlessly appreciate the positive influence they left on my life. That to me is what grief means. To intensely love and lose, but to be able to still continue feeling, living, and forming new loving connections, all while trying to move forward. It's complex, intensely painful, and extremely personal, but it's necessary to allow ourselves to heal.

 My Cat Alphonse (Top), My Dog Friday (Bottom)

 

 Some interesting videos on the subject!

 

^^A video on various aspects of the grieving process^^ 

                           ^^A video presenting some of the possible positive ideas of stoicism^^

^^A bit longer of a video, but overall very impactful on the personal nature and possible ways ^^ 

to navigate grief

Ethical Trade-Offs Made Throughout Life

Nicholas Kline, Section 6   

 Throughout our lives, we make decisions on various “ethical trade-offs.”  Philosophers, and other people in general, offer their opinion on what is best to do in each situation.  The difficulty arises when there are conflicting views on what is “best” for any given situation.  How does someone choose which path to take to overcome an obstacle?  Individuals must use their personal ethical standards and feelings to determine the best course of action.  This also applies to how people perceive their own lives and the lives of others.

What one person thinks is a “rewarding” life, might be a less-than-ideal life for someone else.  While you can sympathize with others, you cannot necessarily empathize with them.  To sympathize with someone, you acknowledge that they are in a state of distress.  Empathizing with someone involves understanding how they are feeling and taking on their emotions.  To truly empathize with someone, you have to have similar perspectives and experiences that allow you to actually understand what they are going through.  “Honest reflection on our own suffering fosters compassion for others” (LH, ~8).  By examining and analyzing the times when we suffered, we can understand what caused the suffering, which in turn creates a sort of reference memory.  The reference memory creates an ability to reflect on past experiences and our emotions during the experience which allows us to apply this event to current experiences of ourselves or others.  One experience that few people can directly relate to is living with a disability.

The first chapter of Life is Hard references a debate between two people, Harriet McBryde Johnson, born with muscular dystrophy, and Peter Singer who likely does not suffer from any disabilities.  Peter Singer that infants with a condition like Harriet McBryde Johnson’s should be “euthanized” to prevent suffering through their condition (LH, ~22-23).  Johnson was born with muscular dystrophy which shortly into her life, confined her to a wheelchair.  While she is not able to walk like a “normal” person, she still has a good outlook on life.  When asked about her perspective on euthanizing children with conditions like hers, she said “that the presence or absence of a disability doesn’t predict quality of life” (New York Times).  People with or without disabilities are equally likely to have a good quality of life.  It is not about what you can or cannot do, quality of life is determined by what you do within your time on Earth.

Similar to Johnson, my grandfather was constrained to a wheelchair, albeit at a later point in life.  When he was 22 years old, he was involved in a hockey accident that snapped his spine.  He became paralyzed from the neck down.  Since the accident, he had decent control of his arms, but could barely move them.  When he first had his accident, they said that he would only live 10 years if he was lucky.   20 years later, he developed various forms of cancer, and they gave him 6 months to live.  These battles with cancer left him on a ventilator around the clock.  One battle with cancer required the removal of a section of the bowel, which left him with a colostomy bag.  Another required the removal of the bladder, which left him with a urostomy bag.  After a few years and battles with cancer later, he started dialysis, at which point he felt that it was time to sign a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form, stating that he was allowing a natural death, rather than undergoing CPR.  He, unfortunately, passed away less than a year after starting dialysis.

He lived over 35 years after he had his accident.  Especially toward the end of his life, he might not have been able to play hockey or do many things that “normal” people can do, but he enjoyed every minute that he had on this earth.  Despite his injuries and various medical conditions that developed later in his life, he found his own ways to enjoy what he was able to do.  I am certain that he remembered times when he had fewer restrictions on what he could do, but he didn’t let that stop him from living the life he had to its fullest potential.  There were likely difficulties adapting to the changes in the ways he lived as well, but he persevered through the difficult times when many people would have likely given up.  

Another person who was severely disabled yet still led a great life was Stephen Hawking.  Hawking’s “disease reduced his bodily control to the flexing of a finger and voluntary eye movements but left his mental faculties untouched” (New York Times).  After a bout with pneumonia, Hawking lost his voice and was eventually able to use a computer to talk.  During his bout with pneumonia, Hawking's wife was presented with her own ethical dilemma.  Doctors asked her if Hawking should be taken off of life support (Wired).  She had to make the decision whether she thought it would be better to let Hawking end his suffering or continue treatment in the hope that he could recover from pneumonia.  I would argue that she made a good choice to not lose hope, as he was able to recover, minus his voice, and continue his pursuit of science.  Hawking might not have had the same physical abilities as most people, but he was able to contribute greatly to science and the exploration and understanding of the universe, particularly in reference to black holes.

Harriet McBryde Johnson, my grandfather, and Stephen Hawking shared two things in common.  They each had different disabilities that greatly hindered their physical abilities; however, they did not let their disabilities dictate how they lived their lives.  Had someone like Peter Singer had their way, the three of them would have been euthanized to save them from their suffering.  However, if you were able to ask them, they would likely say that their suffering was minimal.  They adapted to their abilities and still lived their lives how they saw fit.  Peter Singer was primarily referring to infantile disabilities, but he also mentioned euthanizing later in a person’s life.

Regarding infantile disabilities, I feel that everyone deserves the chance to live life how they see fit.  I agree that there are times when it would be more humane to terminate the pregnancy rather than birthing a child into a life that if it lasts, would be of a much lower quality of life.  Something like vital organs are missing, the fetus is not developing as it should, or there is a severe neurological impairment that would greatly hinder life.  

A family friend of mine gave birth to a child with severe heart issues, but they held out hope that surgery on the newborn would save its life.  Sadly, the child only lived about six months after birth, with all that time being in the hospital and undergoing various surgeries and treatments.  Would knowing that there was a chance, no matter how slim, that the baby would be able to live through the surgeries outweigh the chance that the baby would not make it?

Some people would say that it would be better for the baby to not have to go through all of that, just like there are people that would do anything in their power to keep the baby alive.  It comes down to what the parents feel is the right thing to do.  Doctors offer their input about the situation, but the parents decide what they think should happen.

A study in the United Kingdom in 2013 showed that of the pregnancies that were terminated due to fetal anomalies, 40% were for congenital malformations, 37% were for chromosomal abnormalities, 24% were for nervous system disorders, and 18% were for other conditions (Fetal Anomaly).  In these situations, these parents decided that it was better to terminate the pregnancy than to let the child be born into a life that would likely offer major complications.  

Whether it be someone deciding to sign a DNR or someone deciding whether terminating a pregnancy is the right thing to do, almost everything we do could be considered an ethical decision.  People are more than willing to offer their opinion on the situation, but the individual’s experiences and ethical standards will determine what the best option is.  It is all subjective.  What is “right” for one person, might be “wrong” for another.  However, we can do our best each day to live life to its fullest. 

Note: I used the Kindle version of Life is Hard, therefore, the page numbers do not exactly match up to the paper version of the book.  I noticed that the page numbers of the Kindle version are lower than the paper version (Kindle 67 = Paper 78)

What’s the meaning of life?

According to Douglas Adams that’s the wrong question to ask, according to Fredrick Nietzsche and Albert Camus, Life inherently has no meaning, according to Viktor Frankl the meaning of life is to be discovered within the world not within oneself, according to William James the meaning of life depends on the liver, according to religious people the answer lies in following a religion.

These are just some of the ways in which people attempted to answer this question. In this blog I will try to go over the different views that exist on this question and provide advice from my own experience in the search for meaning as this is a thing that I tried to figure out for a while and the collective philosophy of Camus, Nietzsche, Frankl, and James.

The role of religion in the meaning of life.

Philosophers such as Camus, James, and Nietzsche acknowledge the role of religion in giving life meaning and the reason to endure it’s suffering but as Nietzsche says it “God is Dead”, religion is no longer what guides most people these days. That resulted in Nihilism rising among people, He says “Nihilism appears at that point, not that the displeasure at existence has become greater than before but because one has come to mistrust any “meaning” in suffering, indeed in existence. One interpretation has collapsed; but because it was considered the interpretation it now seems as if there were no meaning at all in existence, as if everything were in vain.” (Nietzsche, Will to Power).

 For Camus resorting to a religion or any type of premade belief system just to escape the fact that life has no meaning is considered philosophical suicide by him which is basically selling your rationality and being controlled like a sheep.

Life’s meaning

Life has no meaning or even if it does we aren’t capable of understanding it so it’s pointless, for Camus and Nietzsche life generally has no meaning and we need to accept this and live through it. For Camus he calls life Absurd as it makes no sense and random. For Camus he says that the question to ask is that is living a hopeless life in a meaningless world a bad thing? His answer is no, he believes that this is an opportunity for us to be able to create our own believes and choose what we want to do, the way to be free from life’s absurdity is to be absurd yourself. An example Camus provides about being absurd is the Greek mythological figure Sisyphus who was the king of Ephyra. He made the mistake of challenging the Gods and was punished by being condemned to push a rock uphill and it will roll down every time he is near the top. What would be absurd is him trying to give this meaning which is exactly what we should do to be content with a meaningless existence. We should always strive to create meaning to our meaningless existence.

How to be content with a meaningless existence

Now, I will go over the different philosophers way to find meaning. For Camus is to be an “absurd man”, refusing to commit physical or philosophical suicide and accepts that life has no meaning and revolts against his desire to find meaning. For Nietzsche the solution is his idea of the “Übermensch” which is his version of “superman” and that is a man who rejects premade roads and creates his own meaning. The idea is similar to the Absurd man and it is a solution for the decline in Christianity in the west and the rise of nihilism. For Viktor Frankl, the meaning of life is highly dependent on the person and the current circumstances. Frankl also talks about the pursuit of wealth, power, and fame as just ways to cope with a meaningless existence. What he suggests is to discover the meaning by interacting with the world which could be through work that gives fulfillment or a way to contributing to the community or helping others. This is also what William James recommends.

What we can learn from all of this is that we need to be okay and accept that life has no meaning and that we don’t have purpose and be happy about that as that gives us the chance to choose what we want to do with our life.

We also can see that picking a value system if we don’t have one already as this is important at guiding us and helping us live a meaningful existence as we need to be able to determine what matters and what doesn’t in order to choose our pursuit.

My experience in search for meaning

I had an existential crisis multiple times and always would resort to philosophy to answer what’s the meaning of my life but the last time, I stumbled accords this video from Elon Musk. 

This gave me the realization that I shouldn’t be asking what’s the meaning of my life but to be asking what do I want to do with my life. Also following the advice from both Nietzsche and Camus of accepting the fact that life has no inherent meaning also helped. I personally started working out to became more athletic and enrolling in martial arts as these two are things I wanted to do for a while. Soon after, the existential crisis was fading away. Also starting to make friends helped as I am someone who neglected their social life. Starting a gratitude and mindfulness habit helped. Always trying to be grateful for what I have in my life also helped me feel fulfilled and happy with my life. Continuous self reflection through helped me asses if I am on in tune with what I want. Setting goals and forgetting it and falling in love with the process is also another thing that helped me. Overall the search for meaning is just a life long journey of finding it and looking for something else to live for, because once a goal is achieved, we are just left with the emptiness what we chased the goal so we always should  be striving for something in our lives.

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

 

How do we break free of our limitations?

Chandradat Ramkissoon, Section 6

William James once said that "Most people live whether physically, intellectually, or morally, in a very restricted circle of their potential being." This quote really resonated with me when I first read it, I realized that throughout my life I have not really been challenging myself and have been limiting myself. I've never really stepped out of my comfort zone and throughout researching a multitude of philosophers, a lot of them would try and step out of their comfort zone to expose themselves to new experiences.

Another prominent philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson said that "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." I feel that this quote is very important, especially in recent years. This is because with the explosion of social media, it is so easy for people to not think for themselves. I'm a victim of this as well because there are a lot of time where I will look at a headline and believe it completely without doing any research. This is another form of a limitation that people put on themselves, people do not think for themselves a lot of the time and it can get them into a bad lifestyle. If a person cannot think for themselves, there will be no personal growth at all.

Meaning of life and James' idea

James would say that life is meaningful and worth living because of a spiritual order in which we should believe. I do not agree with James on this idea because I do not find any meaning through spiritual order in the way that James describes it. However, I do agree with James when he says that the key to life is not just to have ideals, but to also embody them in our actions. In his book "The Varieties of Religious Experience," James wrote that "the greatest use of a life is to spend it for something that will outlast it." Similar to James' quote, Chuck Palahniuk has a similar quote which states, "The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will." Ever since I have heard that quote, I have tried to live my life by it and not view life as something that is too short, but to view life as an opportunity and a journey.

On page 101 of LH, Kieran Setiya says that he regrets treating life as a project to complete. I feel like this is a very important message because throughout my life I have always treated it as specific goals. While setting goals is a good thing to do in order to achieve things that are important to you, if you live your entire life by trying to achieve something better, it will never be enough.



Stream of consciousness/The will to believe

Two of William James' biggest ideas are this idea of the stream of consciousness and the idea that people have the will to believe. To clarify what the will to believe (also an essay as well as an idea) means, essentially it means that humans can hold beliefs that are not supported by objective evidence or logical argumentation. However, this does not mean that humans should ignore objective evidence and believe anything they want just because they have the will to. This idea challenges the traditional notions of rationality and objectivity and shows that human beliefs are shaped by different cognitive, social and emotional factors.

James' stream of consciousness idea is often misinterpreted as well. Some people may believe that the stream of consciousness is chaotic, it is only verbal and it can only be applied to humans. The stream of consciousness is basically the continuous flow of our thoughts, experiences, feelings and perceptions that make up our inner world. These are not just verbal thoughts and images, but can be sensations and emotions.

Dealing with tragedies

In William James' book "The Varieties of Religious Experience," he wrote about the experience of tragedy. James transformed my perspective on tragedies by saying that if we confront tragedy with courage and a willingness to accept the pain and suffering that comes with it, in turn can lead to a deeper understanding of ourselves. Everybody experiences tragedies, but I believe that James' way of thinking about tragedies as a way to understand yourself and the world around you is very important to grow.

At the end of high school, one of our classmates passed away in a car crash. While I was not super close with this person, it still affected me a lot and made me look for ways to grieve the loss. By using William James' philosophy about dealing with tragedies, I can look back and say that I was not willing to accept the pain and suffering that came with that loss. I was avoiding it and trying to distract myself from confronting the fact that they're really gone. Over the years though I have learned how to grieve properly and it has helped me discover who I truly am.

Closing thoughts

I've always felt that I am living life on autopilot, studying William James' philosophy has challenged me to step out of my comfort zone and embrace new experiences. I think that I live life on "autopilot" in a way not because of fears or other limitations, but because of habits. I have always live my life comfortably and never tried to do anything that would challenge what I think is "for me." I always decide whether or not I will enjoy doing something before I even do it. This causes me to not experience as many things and lowers any personal growth that can be gained from new experiences.

I believe that being content is a goal that everyone should strive towards, but should do so without eliminating the opportunities for new experiences. This is because new experiences is what makes life meaningful and just sticking with what you know will not be enough to live a fulfilling life.

Truly creatures of habit

 Sick Souls, Healthy minds written by John Kaag presents a window into the life and mindset of William James. The text presents the question “Is life worth living?” “Why is life worth living?”. In chapter three of the text Kaag looks into James’ studies and opinions on habit and how it enables us to find our true selves.

What is “habit”? We tend to simply think of it as a small off hand activity that we regularly perform. Perhaps making your bed in the morning or sticking your tongue out at an individual you don’t like. According to William James while these do fit under the category of habit; in reality everything we do is habit. The jobs we go to, our means of getting there, how we react to varying stressors or stimulants. 

“Habit is thus the enormous fly-wheel of society, its most precious conservative agent. It alone is what keeps us all within the bounds of ordinance, and saves the children of fortune from the envious uprisings of the poor. It alone prevents the hardest and most repulsive walks of life from being deserted by those brought up to tread therein. It keeps the fisherman and the deck-hand at sea through the winter…”

-Williams James view on habit and it role in society

https://youtu.be/mgb1rin4h38

Through James’ 40s he dedicated himself to psychological studies in which he attempted to understand the development of the human consciousness. He wrote a book: “objective manifestations of the mind”. Within chapter four James explains the development of habit within humans, specifically children. He describes the mind as pliable, not rigid, but not fragile (Kaag). Humans learn through experiences and at a younger age our minds ability to mold to new information is at a much greater ability than when we are older. This is why it is recommended children learn language at a younger age (Kaag). 

We are not confined to a particular set of habits. Throughout our lives habit changes to fit our current desires, in different sections of our lives these habits stabilize and become consistent for a time (Kaag). Humans are a fluctuating species, you certainly wouldn’t think that your personality and mannerisms are exactly the same now as they were when you were 8. However you wouldn’t necessarily say that you aren’t a completely different person now than who you were then. While we fluctuate over time, there are aspects of ourselves that remain consistent or at least remain partially consistent with habit and have the potential to change accordingly. 

“The law of habit” according to William James is that habit ultimately stems and changes due to the extreme plasticity of nervous tissue. This theory was supported and expanded upon by Hebb who observed that neural pathways can alter our physical and mental make up. Called priming. Basically repeated behavior is more likely to occur again in the future (Kaag). Thus creates the definition of habit we have today. 

When looking at William James’ life he was no different in regard to “The law of habit”. Early in his life, a period where his mind would have been argued as more pliable, James was a hard worker and was constantly driven by the need to succeed. Eventually it seems this lifestyle took a certain toll on him and sent him into a depression. He opted to take a break from his extreme success drive which seemed to help him to an extent. However when dedicating himself to his studies on the human conscious he would revert back to his old drive to succeed the text saying that as unlikely as it was he gave into the goddess success.

This isn’t a bad thing the habit of work is good. It’s what makes habit the “flywheel of society”. For William James the habit of work and success seemed to be what made him feel truly alive. It was important to James that he formed a habit that enabled him to live a self actualized life and that improved the world around him, ultimately he wanted a state that made him feel truly at peace with himself. 

“I have often thought the best way to define a man's character would be to seek out the particular mental or moral attitude in which, when it came upon him, he felt himself most deeply and intensely alive. At such moments there is a voice that says, ‘This is the real me’”. -William James 

As powerful and as good as habit is there come dangers of it. James believed that a contributor to human misery was indecisiveness and acting in a stagnant manner. He classified these qualities as bad habit and would get in the way of  true happiness. James saw risk as an important means of living life. Without risk we could never discover new things about ourselves and never get to the point where we find “the real me”. With risk also comes indecisiveness. Should we become indecisive we would no longer have the habit that turns the wheel of society we simply wouldn’t function. Both instances correlate with one another.

 Let's say you have been presented with a job offer that would let you do what you think you truly want to do, however picking up this job would mean losing the current job you have. You could not take the offering and keep the current job you have, but it comes with the consequence of never knowing what could have been. Being indecisive could also bring about your downfall as you could lose this opportunity. Note that this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think over a decision, especially if it’s as important as this example, however should you remain indecisive on a matter it’s basically the same as not taking the risk at all. Furthermore it would remove the concentration you have on your current habit.

Another danger of habit is the monotony of some activities. While according to James our ultimate goal is finding a habit or role is to form a self actualisation on the way we will come across habits that bore us. This could also result in removal of concentration on societal habit and obligations. It is important to find other habits in between these that remove the monotony and promote a healthier mindset. James observed that some Norwegian women despite daily work were very happy. He took note that those with a more positive outlook on life took time to go outside and ride their bikes (Kaag). It has been proven that exercise and sunlight can improve mood, but ultimately means of mediation between work and self actualisation can vary depending on the individual. Take time to try new activities in between busy hours, you might find it to be helpful. It might even help you find “the real you”.

https://youtu.be/FSZyzhi8C9o