(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
In "The Flag, the Cross, and the Station Wagon," an activist finds flaws in patriotism, faith and suburban life and urges fellow baby boomers to change.
In his writings, his many speeches and bullhorn exhortations, Bill McKibben comes across as one of the least cynical people on the battlefield of public opinion. He's passionate about solving problems others have given up on, about building a better world and particularly about climate change, the issue that has made him the Paul Revere of alarm about our fevered planet.
Growing up, he actually sang "Kumbaya" around a campfire — "always earnestly," he says. He won the Gandhi Peace Award and the Thomas Merton Award. One day, perhaps, he'll win the real Nobel to go with the so-called alternative Nobel, which he's already been awarded, the Right Livelihood Award. As is sometimes said about effective environmentalists, he'll make a great ancestor.
His latest book is a slim cri de coeur about the rot at the base of his biographical foundations. McKibben finds his country, his religion and the suburban lifestyle of his youth to be so flawed that he's ready to divorce much of his past... nyt
In Australia, there have been only one mass shooting, and gun homicides decreased nearly 60%. After 35 people were killed in a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996. The government of Australia enacted strict gun control legislation cbsn.ws/3x27GHMpic.twitter.com/S2JqpwmNdy
Francine and David Wheeler, whose son Ben was among the 26 students, teachers and staff killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., are one of nine families who accomplished the unthinkable: they sued Remington Arms cbsn.ws/3lU9pJV
Finding meaning in life is not the same as finding happiness, argues Canadian philosopher Paul Thagard. He picks the best books on the meaning of life. fivebooks.com/best-books/pau…
Today's culture wars treat teachers like political prisoners or, even worse, the enemy.
...PEN America, a nonpartisan advocacy organization that promotes and defends free speech, has documented the introduction of 185 educational gag orders — most related to race, gender, racism and American history — designed to control what may or may not be discussed in a classroom. Combined with the more than 1,500 book bans issued in the past 10 months alone, these bills "represent an orchestrated attempt to silence marginalized voices and restrict students' freedom to learn," according to a statement released last week by PEN.
Not all of these gag order bills have been signed into law, but they have had an unsettling effect on the teaching profession nonetheless. They put teachers on notice: Big Brother is watching you.
And all of this comes on top of the burnout exacerbated by the Covid pandemic, the epicenter of yet another culture war. The pandemic has led to mass teacher absences, contentious mask debates and chaotic "plans" for how to teach remotely. No wonder a poll by the National Education Association found in January that 55 percent of teachers in public schools are ready to leave the profession altogether.
Many won't, of course. They need the paycheck. They need the health insurance. They may hate the cultural context they now find themselves teaching in, but they love their work. The Achilles' heel of schoolteachers, one all too easily exploited by politicians, is that they love their students.
They may be teaching with whiteboards instead of chalk and computers instead of books, but in this sense, teaching has not changed since my grandmother's day. Policymakers are still out of touch with actual schools, and natural-born teachers are still in love with learning, still in love with sharing the excitement of ideas. Most of all, natural-born teachers love kids. And we cannot afford to lose a single one of them. Margaret Renkl
Children are constantly wrestling with questions about metaphysics and morality. But most adults in their lives don't notice or, even worse, discourage them when they do. I'm a philosopher and a father. I've got two boys, Rex and Hank. They have been asking philosophical questions since they were little, and they try to answer them too. They've recreated ancient arguments and advanced entirely new ones. People are sceptical when I say that. "Sure, your kids are philosophical," they respond, "but you're a philosopher. Most kids aren't like that."
They are wrong, though. Every child is a natural philosopher. They're puzzled by the world and they try to puzzle it out. And they're good at it, too. Kids are clever and courageous thinkers. In fact, adults can learn a lot from listening to them – and thinking with them... Guardian
It’s the birthday of philosopher Bertrand Russell, born in Trellech, Wales (1872), into one of Britain’s most prominent families. His parents were radical thinkers, and his father was an atheist, but both his parents died by the time he was four. They left their son under the care of radical friends, hoping he would be brought up as an agnostic, but his grandparents stepped in, discarded the will, and raised Bertrand and his brother in a strict Christian household.
As a teenager, Bertrand kept a diary in which he described his doubts about God and his ideas about free will. He kept his diary in Greek letters so that his conservative family couldn’t read it. Then he went to Cambridge and was amazed that there were other people who thought the way he did and who wanted to discuss philosophical ideas. He emerged as an important philosopher with The Principles of Mathematics (1903) which argued that the foundations of mathematics could be deduced from a few logical ideas. He went on to become one of the most widely read philosophers of the 20th century. His History of Western Philosophy (1946) was a big bestseller and he was able to live off its royalties for the rest of his life.
He said, “The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.”
Why I Am Not a Christian (1927)* By Bertrand Russell
The Lecture that is here reproduced was delivered at the Battersea Town Hall on Sunday March 6, 1927, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society. It is issued in booklet form at the request of many friends. It should be added that the author alone is responsible for the political and other opinions expressed.
As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is ‘Why I am not a Christian’. Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word ‘Christian’. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians—all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on—are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.
Posting has now concluded for the Spring 2022 semester. If you couldn't post it's probably because you neglected to open your author invitation and it may have expired. Send your final post directly to me at phil.oliver@mtsu.edu.
We'll meet via Zoom on May 5 for the conclusion of presentations, see "NEXT" for the link info. Grades will be posted by the registrar by May 9.
Have a good break. Keep asking questions!
“There is no conclusion. What has concluded, that we might conclude in regard to it? There are no fortunes to be told, and there is no advice to be given.–Farewell!”
--William James, August 1910
Just kidding, there is at least one more crucial bit of advice:
(He doesn't look like he's had many long walks, does he?)
The lecture by William James entitled The Moral Equivalent of War, outlines his hypothesis that there is no current replacement for war’s ability to spark ingenuity, pride, self-discipline and one sense of purpose. As a self-proclaimed pacifist, James opposes the building of national militaries, but concludes that military discipline is the antidote to the “Pleasure economy” that was forming in the early 1900’s and could be argued today as well. James’ solution is to channel those values by instituting a “War against nature” an initiative to better the planet.
The problem as James writes is, “So long as antimilitarists propose no substitute for war's disciplinary function, [there is] no moral equivalent of war… so long they fail to realize the full inwardness of the situation.” James warns that a lack of virtue will lead to a complacent culture, where “Fear regarding ourselves now taking the place of the ancient fear of the enemy.” We will no longer strive to continue to better ourselves to defeat the enemy, but instead wallow in internal problems. Trapped in our minds, instead of focusing of the world around us.
James solution is one of overcoming adversity, “The mere fact that life is hard, that men should toil and suffer pain. The planetary conditions once for all are such, and we can stand it.” It is achievement over life’s hardships that give purpose to one life. James notes that these struggles are important in the building of character. He proposes that a conscription of the youth in a “War against nature” that would allow for the youth to struggle and grow. This is the “Blood tax.” Every citizen exercises their blood, sweat and tears to build towards the future. Instilling the values pride and discipline. Hopefully, giving the next generation a sense meaning. The blood tax in the end will take the place of war in character building in the youth. Allowing for peace to become a commonality and to prevent the slip into a complacent, pleasure economy.
The Religion of Healthy Mindedness and Apocalyptic Religion both have something in common. This is the word religion. You may be asking what is Religion?Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.In these texts both authors are able to provide their insight on how they believe religion affects people. As well as breaking down what type of believers they think religion hosts.
Walt Whitman 1819-1892
Walt Whitman was an american poet that had a heavy influence on the lecture The Religion Of Healthy-Mindedness and is considered to be one of the best poets in history. Walt is an example of a person who doesn't allow himself to feel evil. During his younger days Walt was transferred a lot from station to station because of how he criticized others. Walt later gained appreciation after getting recognized for his book Leaves of Grass. His positive attitude changed society's outlook on Walt making him a perfect example of someone that is Healthy-Minded. In the lecture Walt is spoken of as a person who doesn't exhibit or feel fear.
The Religion of Healthy-Mindedness
Regardless of your viewpoint, the religion of Healthy mindedness is the idea that life is beneficial with the power of positive thinking. This stems from a hear no evil, see no evil and/or do no evil mindset from the christian religion. Which soon sparks the conversation about two types of believers or children of god. The once-born and the twice-born. The once-born are considered to still have a religious belief based on fear and watching out for a vengeful god. The twice-born believers are the ones considered to have transcended beyond thinking about a fearful/vengeful god and live their religious life with a positive outlook.
Kurt Andersen 1954-Now
Kurt Andersen is a famous American writer that wrote the book Fantasy-land. In His lifetime Kurt has had multiple New York times best sellers. These achievements are only a few compared to Kurt's lifetime. Kurt famous book Fantasy-Land consisted of a chapter labeled Apocalyptic Religion. This chapter goes into detail about religion, the end times and creationism.
Apocalyptic Religion
In this chapter Kurt states that Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than natural process like evolution. This is the reason why religion plays a major role in the economy. Kurt breaks up the "creationist" into two types of believers. The scary horror story believers who believe god causes disasters and accidents as a result of sin. Next are the happy fairy-tale believers that believe prayer can bring riches and wealth focusing on the positive things their god does.
Religion: Two types of believers
Both texts speak on religion and break down the believers into two types. Once-born believers are a lot like the extreme Scary horror story believers. They both have a vengeful outlook on what their god is capable of. Next are the happy fairy-tale believers that can resemble the likeness of the twice-born believers. Their beliefs are based on more of the positive things god can do for us. Like Whitman, who was labeled an atheist, these believers looked at the more positive non-evil side of life. This ultimately breaks the conversation of believers into two.
William James’s “On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings”
By James Anisi
What is the Certain Blindness?
The blindness in human beings, as James describes it, is the inherently selfish nature of our thoughts and ideas. Even if we understand the opinions of others, we still possess an inability to think from their perspectives. James himself admitted to being victim to this blindness, even though he saw himself as a selfless and altruistic. How could a considerate and generous person admit to having a blindness of selfishness?
Objective v. Subjective Morality
In order to understand the blindness that James is describing in his essay, it’s important to think how James thought prior to his realization. Consider three pairs of ideas: Happy v. Sad, Suffering v. Contentment, and Right v. Wrong. Which is the odd one out? If you are anything like William James was before writing his essay, you would say that right v. wrong is the only subjective pair. Right and wrong are completely subjective ideas while someone can definitely be happy or sad. Someone can definitely be suffering or content. As a pragmatist, William James thought that, although it was impossible to determine objective right and wrong, he could make the world a better place by affecting people objectively. However, he soon realized that he could not simply try and make people happier or end suffering, because all of those are also subjective.
Difference Between Truth and Perspective
To better understand the difference between considering one’s feelings and their perspective, consider the personal example James gave from his life. James was journeying through the mountains of North Carolina with a mountaineer, when he noticed stumps of trees riddling the hillsides and ugly houses with large crop fields being built on top. James thought this was a clear example of selfish behavior. While the mountain men only cared about building their homes and planting their crops, James instead was being more selfless, caring more about the destruction of natural beauty and the downsides of deforestation. When he confronted the mountain man, he was not given an explanation for their selfish actions, but instead an explanation for why they weren’t being selfish. The Mountaneer said that he and his fellow men never wanted to live in the mountains so far away from society, but instead they were doing what was morally right. When James questioned with confusion, the Mountaineer further explained that chopping down these trees by hand was a beautiful and honorable accomplishment amongst their community and that building houses with crop fields were for the purpose of expanding civilization. He believed that what he was doing was in fact morally correct, and from this James better understood the difference between truth and perspective. There is no fundamental misunderstanding between the two, James and the Mountaineer agree that the mountain man are destroying forests in order to build houses and cultivate the land. What they disagree on, though, is what beauty, goodness, and generosity mean in this context. The blindness that humans have is not an inability to consider others’ feelings, but rather we can only understand others in the context of our own perspective of the world. I also chose to use the cartoon above that is often used as a political cartoon. Both sides can agree what the shape is (a circle with curly tail) but they understand them as different things from their perspectives. Another one of my favorite examples is the poem “The Clod and the Pebble” by William Blake.
In this poem, the clod of clay and the pebble have different perspective on what it means to be in a relationship. While they both can agree that, in a relationship, two people sacrifice something for the happiness and comfort of the other, both give and both get. However, the clay thinks that the true goal of a relationship is to give to another at your own expense. Perhaps the other person gives something to you, but that isn’t something for you to focus on. Your job in the relationship is to “build a heaven in hell’s despair.” On the contrary, the pebble believes that your role in the relationship is to be given love at the expense of another. Of course you will do your part to give to your significant other, but fundamentally you are being selfish by expecting another to sacrifice for you.
This is analogous to James’s disagreement with the Mountaineer. The same way that James thought the mountain men were being selfish in destroying the forest, the pebble thinks love is selfish for expecting happiness given from another. And again the other way, the Mountaineer sees their job as selfless and a service to the community, the same way the clod of clay believes that love is meant to lift up another. How can one say that love is immoral when you are sacrificing some joy for another? But how can one say that love is moral if you are expecting sacrifice from another? The entire idea of morality becomes a lot more difficult when you have to consider the perspectives of others.
What’s the Solution?
In the end, James decides that we must do our best to understand where other people are coming from when trying to have philosophical discussion. Everything from politics to basic cophilosophy needs a strong foundation where opposing, or even agreeing, sides of a discussion can properly communicate. The first step in creating this foundation is everyone agreeing to consider the perspective of others. It isn’t something that humans are naturally good at, it’s not even something that’s easy to learn with practice, but we need to be able to understand others’ points of view before we hope to have effective debates, discussions, and disagreements.
The philosophy of Buddhism, was created after Buddha's journey of self discovery to understand human suffering. In the philosophy, the concept of self is one of the major talking points. To Buddha, there’s a lot of nuances to the self. By discussing this concept, students can understand the varying nuances and reach nirvana.
To understand the goal of Nirvana, we must first look in depth at the doctrines of the self {Ātman} and non-self {anattā}.
When it comes to the self, Buddhism describes it being made of five major components. It is described as the Five Khandas or Five Aggregates. These five elements detail how we experience the world and how we can join the being to make up the self, creating a uniform concrete identity.
1. Form (the body) {Rupa} - This is matter that is tangible (ie can be touched). This Khanda is linked to our five senses (smell, touch, taste, sight and hearing). [EX: Seeing a physical object, such as a chair.]
2. Sensation (feelings) {Vedana} - These are feelings experienced from using the five senses. They can be physical or emotional.
[EX: Seeing a comfortable chair after a long, tiring day may lead to a sense of happiness.]
3. Perception (the process of recognizing what things are) {Samjna} -This allows people to recognize things in the world because they have seen or experienced those things before.
[EX: Recognizing the chair through experience of using them before.]
4. Mental formations (thoughts) {Samskara} - This is about the different opinions and feelings that people may have.
[EX: Creating an opinion about the chair in relation to other chairs experienced previously.]
5. Consciousness (an awareness of things) {Vijnana} - This is the awareness a person has of the things around them in the world.
[EX: Being aware of things in the world.]
However, Buddha questions that these experiences are not constant, therefore our identity is not constant.It is through the idea, of the fluid being, that extensive research introduces the non-self through the dimensions of diachronic and synchronic
Diachronic means impossibility of anything retaining its identity over time
[EX: If you were to make a comparison between how you are now to how you were 10 years ago. It would be easy to say that you are still the same you, but Buddha argues that you are not identical to your past self. What he would say is that you were experiencing a confusion of identity. ]
Synchronic means how your psychophysical components play a role in the non-self. Taking this definition into account, we can see what Buddha is trying to convey. While we believe we are one unitary thing, we are a connected system of internal processes. There are perceptions, feelings, personality traits, physical parts, such as hands and a heart, but no self. You can take some away and still be you. You can replace some, and still be you. You can add new ones, and still be you. And if you take them all away, one by one, until there is no body and no mind left, there is no you remaining.
[EX: Imagine that you could have a skill of anyone that you know for a day. Notice how you simply want the skill of that person but not their identity. We pull that attribute from who they are.]
Buddhas teaching of the South hopes to show students that there is a clear distinction between a self and a person. The self being a simple, independent, continuing thing which a person identifies as. On the other hand, a person is a constructed, or designated by their own psychological and social processes, and reflect the role that we play for each other as individuals, in a collectively constituted world.
Buddha goes on to explain that the self creates a distorted view of reality with itself at the center of its own universe. Everything else that it knows orbits around it as its objects. This self created universe can lead to a deep-rooted selfishness. On top of that, it can lead to anxiety about preserving the integrity and welfare of the self. Once I take myself to be this special kind of entity, I have a relationship to that entity of identity, and so it seems rational to give it special priority. And so we get this crazy competition of interests between beings whose lives and interests are in fact completely interdependent. All of this leads to greed, anger, fear, conflict, and general unhappiness.
When we experience ourselves as decentered persons, we experience ourselves as part of a larger network of others, whose interests we share, and whose pains and pleasures we share as well. Buddha says we must become detached from our need to fulfill our identity, which will ultimately lead to Nirvana.
The Problem of Suffering, the theological debate that has lasted centuries, yet is nowhere close to being answered. The debate of suffering is not only one that is debated between scholars and philosophers but also personally between someone's heart and mind. Why do people suffer? Can there be a god that allows humanity to suffer? If there is a god, why is he or she allowing people to suffer? Can a god that sees humanity suffering uncontrollably be considered a good god? Although the debate has been lasting centuries, the debate seems rather to be one sided looking at this question from humanity's standpoint-- but not from God's viewpoint.
Epicurus, a Greek philosopher, knowing for his founding of Epicureanism the school of Philosophy, made this statement regarding this pressing questions.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. If is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. If he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus
"If he is both willing and able?" This question seems to cover a wide description of God. In many people's minds, "God" is mainly understood as an omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing, "good" creator. But then the question arises, what is the definition of a "good God." Some people consider a good God, a higher entity that protects and loves like a parent protects and loves a child, or a creator that eliminates all pain and evil, or a creator who allows humanity to do whatever they like without any consequences. Through my reading, I find that C.S Lewis, a philosopher and author, penned these words that sum up much of what humanity wants in a God in his book, "The Problem of Pain." He wrote, "“We (humanity) want, in fact, not
so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven---a senile benevolence
who, as they say, “liked to see young people enjoying themselves” and who plan
for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, “a good time was had by all.”’ Yet this does not answer the question, is God both willing and able to get rid of evil. Assuming that God is all powerful and knowing, then yes, his is able, but is he willing?
When answer this question, it also ties into the idea of free will. Going back to the beginning of the Old Testaments in Genesis, Christians believe that when God created Adam and Eve, he created them in his image thus giving them free will. Now, the idea is thatif God is a good God, he wouldn’t allow bad things to happen, such as murder,
abuse, assault, etc. God does condemn the shed of innocent blood which has been
repeated countless times within the Bible, but to
miraculously intervene every time something hurtful was said or done would take
away our free will as human being.
Although I
do agree with much of what C.S. Lewis explains, I believe that a simple factor
was left out of the equation when discussion the problem of suffering, and it
can be explained in a question. As an
all-knowing, all-powerful God, what obligates him to control the weather and
chaos, and make like easier for humanity? Going back to the foundation of
Christianity, there is the belief, that we are all made in God’s image, and a
part of him is having free will. To give free-will, doesn’t someone first have
to have free will?
Claiming that
everything is true, that means that God does have the power to control the wind
and sea, and causes nations and kingdoms to rise and fall, then why would he
follow the requests of those who do not believe or choose to worship another god?
An example used could be of the Israelites, in Jeremiah in the Old Testament,
who chose to worship pagan gods, one specifically mentioned was called “Baal or Moloch” where parents would sacrifice and burn their children to worship him. This
and the worship of any other gods were condemned several time throughout the
Laws of Moses. Because of idolatry and the refusal to turn away from their other
gods, God refused to hear their requests when difficulty and war struck.
The next question that should be
looked at is , “Then whence cometh evil?” In Romans 5:12 it is
written, “Therefore,
just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus
death spread to all men, because all sinned—.” According to some philosophers,
humanity is naturally good. However, it seems that the opposite seems to be
true. When a child is born, as they grow, they are not taught to lie, or steal,
or make a mess. Instead, parents must teach their children to tell the truth
and share and respect one another.
It can be easier to explain the demise of
humanity, yet another aspect of the problem arises. What about natural
disasters or natural evil according to David Hume. If God is an all-powerful God, then why is
there environmental devastation such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods that
destroy lives of millions, why doesn’t he prevent it? Again, scripture can answer this, but it still leads back to the fall of humanity and free-will of humans choosing to care about their own convenience and not
taking care of the earth by polluting and overworking the ground.
So, to answer “whence cometh evil”, for
nature, it comes from the fall of man resulting in the decaying of the earth
and humanity’s involvement. For people, regardless of what isle a person is all, it seems that everyone can agree, many pains come from individuals choosing personal desires over the wellbeing’s of others, resulting in their downfall of themselves or their fellowman.
One of the things that many people of all ages struggle with throughout their life is the concept of stress. Many of us spend countless amounts of hours wasted throughout the years filled with stress over concepts or ideas that ultimately do not matter. It is because of this that in his essay The Gospel of Relaxation James seeks to solve this issue for all.
Stress ultimately begins in our subconscious, the realm of our psyche that lies active but without our cognizant knowledge of it doing so. It is in this realm that James references a Vietnamese neurologist who talks about a concept known as Binneleben, the buried life of human beings. The idea of this "buried life" is that it is the essence of what defines our qualities. The little mannerisms and tones that society picks up upon during social interactions. James writes, "
Act faithfully, and you really have faith, no matter how cold and even how dubious you may feel. "It is your purpose God looks at," writes Mrs. Smith, "not your feelings about that purpose; and your purpose, or will, is therefore the only thing you need attend to.... Let your emotions come or let them go, just as God pleases, and make no account of them either way.... They really have nothing to do with the matter. They are not the indicators of your spiritual state, but are merely the indicators of your temperament or of your present physical condition." In this passage Smith is saying that people tend to focus on the dogmatic principles of their religion and worry about small insignificant details. Ultimately, this is pointless as the Christian God does not care about specifics, he cares about your intention and your purpose. If the purpose and intention/will is in the right ligth, then there is nothing to worry about. In a later article he refers to
"The Practice of the Presence of God, the Best Ruler of a Holy Life, by Brother Lawrence, being Conversations and Letters of Nicholas Herman of Lorraine, Translated from the French" James continues this line of thought from some of the passages written by Brother Lawrence. In this passage it details how Brother Lawrence was worried that he might have lost his salvation for he could do nothing right by the eyes of God: "That he had long been troubled in mind from a certain belief that he should be damned; that all the men in the world could not have persuaded him to the contrary; but that he had thus reasoned with himself about it: I engaged in a religious life only for the love of God, and I have endeavored to act only for Him; whatever becomes of me, whether I be lost or saved, I will always continue to act purely for the love of God. I shall have this good at least, that till death I shall have done all that is in me to love Him.... That since then he had passed his life in perfect liberty and continual joy." The result of the conclusions this individual drew was that, again, in agreeance with Mrs. Smith, do not worry over the specifics of religion, so long as you do your best and focus on your love for God then you shall be saved. Ultimately, this is the best piece of advice James could have given to any religious person in the 19th century as there was much turmoil within the church at that time. It is also ironic in a way as James was able to give excellent advice to the faithful while not explicitly being a man of faith himself. However, this demonstrates his pragmatic lifestyle in that while he might not have been religious, he was able to find a way to apply his philosophy to religion and bring wisdom to the worrying congregation in his era.
The final aspect of this essay is the advice James gives to students and other common people. In many cases we now tend to focus our thoughts on perfectionism and take small failures to the extreme depths of worry and anxiety. In the case of students, this stress and worry comes from the exams and tests for any level of education. This leads to one of the arguably most famous pieces of this essay is the advice that James gives for how to study for an exam. James writes, "
Healthy-mindedness can be defined as a way of feeling happy about anything immediately.
This is an abstract way of thinking that ignores everything evil and only focus on the good side of everything. To understand the fully helathy-mindedness, it is very important to know who influenced the topic.
Walt Whitman 1819–1892
Walt Whitman is the one who inspired healthy-mindedness because he is an example of a person who is inable to feel evil. Walt Whitman also known as the Bard of Democracy is known for his peoms and his very sharp writing style. During his younger days he would often move to different news stations because of how harsh he would critcize his colleges, peers, and even his bosses!
However, throughout his entire time as a journalist he would he would work on his life's work Leaves of Grass. But that wasn't any easy feat, it wasn't until he was in last years that his life's work was validated by other in the community. Throughout his life ge was described as a person who had the inabily to feel fear, get angry nor could he curse very well. This made him a very optimistic person. His favorite past time was to wlak outside and watch insects, grass, and all other kinds of animals. This is why he is considered to be one of the people who inspired healthy-mindeness.
The Religion of healthy-mindedness
What is Religion? Religion is a set of organized beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to belief and worship of a controlling force such as a personal god or another supernatural being. When something makes a person feel good they tend to indulge in it more and make it a habit. Whether, it is a sport, drugs or alchol; healthy-mindedness is no different. For a person who is healthy-minded what they focus on is extreme optimism. For a person who is a extreme optimist healthy-mindedness can be seen a a religion because it reinforces looking at the brighter of things. Something that either comes nature or something that they focus on.
However the opposite side of the argument is pessimism. To this person no matter what it is they always have a negative stance on a situation. For example......
No matter the situation these two different types of people have diffent outlooks on life. According to William James it is a bad thing to be an optimist or pessimist, a person should be neutral. However, Walt Whitman was an optimist who had his lifes work rejected for almost his entire life. If he had discontinued working on Leaves of Grass would he have still made the same impact with his writings is a question that is looked at when thinking about this topic.
No matter what side in this disscusion a person may choose; their thoughts can only be decided by themselves. However, I think that what ever a person is an optimist or pessimist, they shouldn't be boxed into either one because people shouldn't be forced into anything that benifits others at the expense of themselves.
