The Philosophy of Disability - Final Presentation by Allison "Ally" Gibbons H01

 Introduction

Many people would think that discussions of disability would be reserved as a medical topic, not a philosophical one. Contrarily, the ethical approaches to how people discuss, legislate, and live with disability has deep roots in philosophy. The book Life is Hard by Kieran Setiya touches on the moral approach to disability in his first chapter. Setiya, interestingly, is a man who lives with life-altering health complications himself, but does not consider himself to have a disability from his perspective. But despite his seemingly hypocritical view of his own “bodily malfunction,” a phrase which will be discussed later, he uses his personal experience and the experiences of caring for his disabled family members to explain how he came to understanding people who live with disabilities. 

The Importance of Understanding Disability

In Life is Hard, Setiya only refers to physical disabilities, likely because cognitive disabilities are a whole other can of worms to get into. However, in my opinion, his logic could still be applied to people with any disability as well. The American Psychological Association found the following:

Percentage of Americans Who Report Having a Disability (of Some Kind)

• 46% age 75+ ​
• 24% age 65-74 ​
• 12% age 35-64​
• 8% younger than 35

This shows that disability only becomes more common as a person gets older, and it is also likely that a person could develop multiple disabilities in a lifetime. Which is exactly why Setiya points out that “disability should matter to anyone who is hoping to get old” (16).

Illness Vs Disease

Setiya summarizes that the distinction between illness versus disease was made more recently in medical history, to remove some of the stigma associated with both short-term or chronic ailments. “Disease” Setiya writes, “is biological” while “illness is . . . a matter of how life feels” (17). Instead of viewing people as ‘diseased,’ in much the same way someone would refer to an animal, they changed the wording to refer to people as simply ‘ill’ or ‘sick.’ This way, the person’s health is viewed as something out of their control and should be treated with more compassion. 

Setiya also puts emphasis on the “phenomenological” aspect of illness (17). No two people who are diagnosed with the same disease will experience illness in the same way. And day-to-day, their level of ‘ill’ feeling can vary drastically. This is where we get ‘invisible’ illnesses, diseases, or disabilities which are not always outwardly obvious.

Defining Disability

Now that Setiya has given us his definition of illness versus disease, he finally clarifies the definition of disability. Setiya writes, disability is “a category of overt bodily malfunction, . . . not akin to illness or disease” (18). He points out that “bodily malfunction is biological” in the same way he defined disease, and disabilities' effects on one’s life are very subject to chance and circumstance, similar to his definition of illness (18). If all of these definitions seem too overlapping, do not fret, Setiya provides the opinions of a prominent philosopher on the theory of disability, Elizabeth Barnes, to clarify.

Elizabeth Barnes 

Elizabeth Barnes refines the previous definition by Setiya by saying that “to be physically disabled is not to have a defective body, but simply to have a minority body” (18). This idea of “minority” is also relatively new. Many disability theorists have worked  “to move disability away from the realm of medicine,” which is very complex and not so easily understood by every person, into the realm of politics, clarifying the disabled as a “political minority.” This move is what eventually led to the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, which defends the rights of people part of the disability minority.

And though the people who live with a disability are part of a minority, their disability itself does not automatically make them 'lesser off.' Barnes “suggests that disability is neutral” in respect to well-being, according to her value-neutral model. This is something that Setiya agrees with, saying that “physical disability is not, in itself, an obstacle to living well” but rather just one of many aspects to one’s complex life (18). 

Eudaimonia

Is it just me, or is a philosophy discussion complete without a mention of the ancient Greek philosophers? Setiya brings to the discussion Aristotle’s definition of eudaimonia, saying that Aristotle “thinks the best life is ‘lacking in nothing’” (20). While this sentiment is nice, Setiya thinks that Aristotle’s preoccupation with figuring out the “single ideal life,” may actually “have been wrong” (21). Of all of the people you can list who have lived ‘perfect’ lives, your list’s “members won’t have much in common (21). There is no singular path to life because life is pluralistic. People “can flourish in many ways, doing countless different things” so each person’s eudaimonia is unique to their own experience and perception of the world. Furthermore, this means that we should not try to compare our eudaimonia to any other person’s or to a person with disabilities because it would be useless to try to justify one life as being better or lesser than the other when they have nothing in common.

Skeptics Moral Question of Disability

After Setiya finishes his discourse on the quality of life of people with disabilities, he takes a moment to play the devil’s advocate, or, in this case, the skeptics advocate. On page 24, Setiya points out that "Skeptical philosophers will ask why it's wrong to impose disability on others if [disabilities] don't make life substantially worse" (24). Setiya makes 2 points on this:

• 1.“Adapting to disability is hard” 

Whether it be a gradual adaptation to an advancing disease or a sudden accident or onset that results in debilitation, the process will inevitably come with trauma.

• 2. “It’s not okay to cause harm merely when the net result will not be bad”

While causing harm is bad, skeptics would say that in some situations, like pushing over an old lady so she doesn’t get hit by a car, is causing harm but for a lesser of two outcomes. What Setiya is trying to say is that according to the value-neutral model, yes, having a disability is not a bad thing, but causing a disability would not, in this case, produce a lesser of two outcomes.

The moral of this story is please don’t do what the skeptics are thinking.

Suggested Reading

In addition to Elizabeth Barnes, Setiya brings up many other philosophers' takes on disability and also what it means to live a happy life. I would like to suggest another reading that I think supports the argument that people with disabilities are a diverse crowd, and each is capable of achieving acceptance and happiness. The book Far From The Tree by Andrew Solomon is not necessarily a philosophy book per se, but it surveys “how children and their parents learn to accept one another”. In addition to disabilities like dwarfism, autism, deafness, or down syndrome, he also showcases the experiences of people who are trans, prodogies, or rape victims, to name a few. His wide reaching topics all have the same purpose of showing how people who may have no similarities other than the fact that they are minorities in their own respect, are able to achieve fulfilling lives.

Discussion Questions and Final Thoughts

Disability is a very broad and changing discussion that is effectively useless to try to summarize in one example of one person’s experience. I implore you, reader, to ponder your thoughts on the points Setiya discusses. Do you think that discussions about disability should be a philosophical, political, ethical, or medical matter? How do you think the United States compares in their treatment of people who are disabled? How can we do better in understanding them? I leave the comment section open to you.

Alternative Medicine

Archer Welch H02

Alternative Medicine

Alternative medicine became increasingly popular in the 60s and 70s as many people entered the “hippie” era. With this in mind, people experimented in ways to better their physical and mental health in ways that have often been disproven. Although this is the case, many people still look toward alternative medicine as a way to heal themselves. With the most recent uprising of the idea that vaccines cause mental issues and autism in children, many people have turned back to these alternative medicines in order to heal themselves and others around them.

Practices like acupuncture, herbal remedies, and energy healing gained popularity as their allure lay in their promise of personalized care, empowerment, and a departure from the cold, clinical approach of conventional medicine. Although not all alternative medicine is laid in falsities, there are many alternative sources that are shown to be false. It is these sources that reveal the dangers in alternative medicine. In the book Defiled: The Spiritual Dangers of Alternative Medicine, they discuss the spiritual harm that believing in alternative medicine can have on a person. They talk not only about the mental strain that false hope can give but also the vast amounts of exploitation that is had on the victims of alternative medicine.

Exploitation is by far the largest reason many don't trust alternative medicine as well as the reason that many alternative medicines are discredited. Many have used the fears of society to hurt and use them for their own gain. People such as Charlatans exploit people’s vulnerability, peddling unproven cures and miracle treatments. This continues to blur the lines between well-intentioned healers and those who prey on desperation. Likewise it is a popular saying that someone is a snake oil salesman. This is the fraudulent practice of selling something that has no value or will not help whatsoever. This being such a common phrase only aids in the fact that many who sell these alternative medicines do not have your best interest at heart. A famous case of this exploitation is through Suzanne Somers of whom used a media platform in the 70’s and 80’s to promote bioidentical hormones as a treatment for her cancer This lead to many trying out the hormones and in the end it lead to extremely dangerous results in women who previously had hormone-fueled cancer. Likewise, there was the idea of Dr. Oz and Scientology.





Tom Cruise Scientology video leaked

591K viewsJan 16, 2008

YouTubeOn Demand Entertainment

Along with physical exploitations we see many other types of mental and spiritual exploitation where they tell the ill that they have spoken to someone on the other side who makes promises or there are magical healing crystals that physically do not do anything. A very relevant case of someone influencing others that mental thinking alone can heal them, is the tiktok creator known as Shanin Blake, who has sung about healing a kidney infection and moving consciously moving DNA with her mind. This has led Many to try and follow in her ways in healing themselves spiritually and with their mental powers' ' alone.

With this in mind, it has been widely discussed that the powers of believing alone may be able to heal. With the idea that crystals may heal you or the belief that whatever remedy you have created may actually help has been proven to do something. Maybe not heal all but it usually works in keeping the illness at bay for a while. Magical thinking has often led to many alternative medicines such as homeopathy and energy fields. Physically big pharma and individuals have put placebos in place of actual medication. Placebos reveal the mind’s ability to influence physical health. This ritual of taking a pill can trigger healing responses. Likewise, if someone seriously believes that they are taking medication that seems to show improvement it may actually show signs of improvement even when on the placebo. Many scientists and studies have been conducted to help study the effect including Harvard University. Likewise, there has been a rise in something known as the Shamanic Healer of which blends science with magical thinking. These healers do not wear feathers or chant incantations, but they harness the placebo effect, intuition, and empathy. Their “magic” lies in connecting with patients on a deeper level, addressing emotional and spiritual needs alongside physical symptoms.

With all the discussion of the possible aids to alternative medicine there is also the more credible alternative medicine. This can include acupuncture, and some even consider chiropractic practice as an alternative. Acupuncture, when done right, has increased the function of life in many. With the practice being shown to relax muscles that may not be acting the way they should as well as relieving stress in headaches and pain. This was a very common practice in the Chinese culture of Acupuncture. Likewise, chiropractic services are often claimed as a mix between “real” medicine and alternative. Due to the nature being that they are manipulating the muscles and skeletal position of someone instead of prescribing medications or conducting surgery. Although this is considered alternative it is not an argument that chiropractors have a following for a reason. Plenty of people see Chiropractors in order to adjust their spine or to try to relieve pain in joints and neck. Treatments that standard physicians can not take part in.




Although there are many kinds of alternative medicine there is always fear. There is the initial fear in traditional medicine that has led many to try alternative medicine and then there are those who have tried everything to get better and nothing helps so they get desperate. Although it is not to shame those who reach out and look for other sources, it is dangerous to outright reject traditional medicine altogether. This fear is what many exploit and it leads to what is called “Magical thinking” where people try anything and everything no matter how harmful it may be to themselves and others around them even when there is an easy solution. The reenchantment of medicine should complement—not replace—scientific advancements.



In the text FantasyLand, by Kurt Anderson, he discusses the use of alternative medicine and widely believes that the use of alternative medicine is strictly fantastical thinking. He states that it is a pathway to society to believe in fantasies that have no evidence behind them. Anderson introduces many of the topics mentioned above such as the Shamanic healer also called the “blue-chip witch doctor”. He also warns against abandoning evidence-based treatments in favor of magical thinking alone. Anderson, although not completely opposed to the idea of alternative medicine warns that it should not be the strict pathway that anyone takes.



So how should medicine be approached in the future, if there are credible sources of alternative medicine such as chiropractic, who is to say that there are not our ways that we simply haven't explored? Or even that there is more to magical thinking than we may see on the outside? Who are we to say?

Peter Singer - Ryan Taylor H01

 

Peter Singer: Revolutionizing Ethics Through Effective Altruism

In the realm of ethics, few names resonate as profoundly as Peter Singer's. An Australian philosopher, ethicist, and pioneer of effective altruism, Singer has sparked global conversations about morality, compassion, and our responsibilities to others. Today we will embark on a journey through Singer's ethical philosophy, exploring the principles of utilitarianism, the extension of moral consideration beyond humans, and the practical application of effective altruism.

Early Life:

Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia on July 6, 1946. His parents were Jewish immigrants from Austria who moved after the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938. Despite their religious background, Singer and his family did not observe any Jewish holidays and did not claim to be religious. Singer attended the University of Melbourne and studied law, history, and philosophy as a resident of the Ormond College. He graduated in 1967 with a bachelor’s degree. In 1969 he obtained his master’s degree for a thesis titled Why Should I Be Moral? at the same school. He was awarded a scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, and he completed a Bachelor of Philosophy in 1971. He wrote a thesis on civil disobedience titled Democracy & Disobedience which was then published as a book in 1973. 

The Foundation of Singer's Ethics:

At the core of Singer's ethical framework lies utilitarianism, the belief that actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Singer's utilitarian perspective challenges people to look past the effects of their actions on themselves and at the effects of their actions on the world. He argues for the principle of equal consideration of interests, advocating for the inclusion of all sentient beings in our moral calculations, regardless of species. Not only might what you or I do affect the people in the world, but it might also affect the plants or animals around us. For example, if you were to chop down a section of forest to build a house not only are you reducing the number of trees that can provide clean air for humans, you are also destroying animal homes and part of the ecosystem. This is also where Singer gets his belief that people should be vegan if possible. Avoiding the consumption of animal products benefits the animal kingdom which highly outnumbers mankind.

Effective Altruism: Putting Theory into Practice:

Singer's philosophy extends beyond abstract theory, manifesting in the practical movement of effective altruism. Effective altruism encourages individuals to maximize the positive impact of their actions, whether through charitable giving, career choices, or lifestyle decisions. This practice helps to improve the quality of life around the world and promote the most good in the world. If everyone sought to improve and benefit other’s lives the world would become a better place. 

Singer's Influence and Legacy:

Throughout his career, Singer has been a vocal advocate for animal rights, global poverty alleviation, and ethical consumerism. His writings, including seminal works like "Animal Liberation" and "The Life You Can Save," have inspired countless individuals to reevaluate their moral responsibilities and take action to create a more just and compassionate world. Singer's influence extends beyond academia, shaping public discourse and policy debates on issues ranging from factory farming to international aid.

Controversies and Criticisms:

Despite his significant contributions, Singer's ethical stances have not been without controversy. Critics have challenged his utilitarian approach, particularly regarding issues such as euthanasia, abortion, and the treatment of individuals with disabilities. His thoughts regarding euthanasia and disabilities extend to the euthanizing of disabled newborns due to the belief that it would do the most good for the family and the child. He also takes the stance that the medical researchers of the world should cease research to cure most diseases and work to cure old age since the most people die from old age. This is where the critics of effective altruism find fault in his philosophy. However, Singer remains steadfast in his convictions, engaging with critics and refining his arguments in pursuit of greater moral clarity.

Food for Thought:

Peter Singer's impact on the field of ethics is undeniable. By challenging conventional wisdom and promoting the principles of utilitarianism and effective altruism, he has paved the way for a more compassionate and globally conscious society. As we reflect on Singer's legacy, let us not only admire his intellectual contributions but also heed his call to action. Whether through charitable giving, advocacy, or everyday choices, each of us has the power to make a difference in the world. In the words of Singer himself, "We can all do something to make the world a better place." 

Happy birthday to Hume (& Wittgenstein)

It's the birthday of the man who said: "The truth springs from arguments among friends," and "The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster." That's Scottish philosopher David Hume (books by this author), born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1711. While working as a librarian, he wrote the six-volume History of England (1762), which became a bestseller and gave him the financial independence to write and revise his philosophical treatises. He wrote A Treatise of Human Nature (1740), Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), and Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). He was a strict skeptic, and questioned all knowledge derived from the senses.

David Hume said, "Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty."

And, "Reading and sauntering and lounging and dozing, which I call thinking, is my supreme happiness."

And, "He is happy whose circumstances suit his temper but he is more excellent who can suit his temper to any circumstances."


Today is also the birthday of another well-known philosopher: Ludwig Wittgenstein (books by this author), born in Vienna in 1889. He was described by his colleague Bertrand Russell as "the most perfect example I have known of genius as traditionally conceived: passionate, profound, intense, and dominating." He was the youngest of nine children; three of his brothers committed suicide.

Wittgenstein was born into one of the richest families in Austro-Hungary, but he later gave away his inheritance to his siblings, and also to an assortment of Austrian writers and artists, including Rainer Maria Rilke. He once said that the study of philosophy rescued him from nine years of loneliness and wanting to die, yet he tried to leave philosophy several times and pursue another line of work, including serving in the army during World War I, working as a porter at a London hospital, and teaching elementary school.

Wittgenstein was particularly interested in language. He wrote, "The limits of my language are the limits of my world. All I know is what I have words for."

…

WA

The Stream of Consciousness - Jocelyn Bullock H01

A BRIEF HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN PHILOSOPHY

Aristotle

Philosophical conversations surrounding consciousness have been in circulation for millennia, with scholars citing Aristotle as one of the first to begin to delve into the nebulous concept. He described consciousness as “perceiving that we perceive.” Though this thought truly only scratched the surface of consciousness, the idea would eventually lead to more serious exploration into the subject. As time progressed, ideas on consciousness matured, and philosophers like Descartes and Locke developed new theories on consciousness.

Rene Descartes

    Descartes popularized the phrase “Cogito Ergo Sum” translated as “I think, therefore I am,” which hearkens back to the words said by Aristotle so many centuries ago. However, Descartes’ interpretation of the conscious mind adds a new element onto the idea—it is not enough to say that consciousness is the capacity to perceive our own perception, but anything that does not have this capacity cannot perceive its own existence and therefore cannot be considered a truly aware, conscious being.

Locke then furthered the discussion by bringing consciousness into the same sphere as the “self.” In the words of Locke:

“…consciousness always accompanies thinking, and ‘tis that, that makes every one to be, what he calls self.”

John Locke

This assertion brings consciousness closer to the modern consideration of the subject, in that it interweaves our ability to think with our ability to be. However, Locke also created the theory of “simple ideas,” that attributes our core beliefs and thought processes to the experiences that we have. Once these thoughts are established, Locke believed them to be unchanging even in the face of new experiences (Kaag, 101). In this sense, Locke theorized consciousness to be stationary and largely concrete concept that attributes our core beliefs and thought processes to the experiences that we have. Once these thoughts are established, Locke believed them to be unchanging even in the face of new experiences (Kaag, 101). In this sense, Locke theorized consciousness to be stationary and largely concrete.

    Locke’s definition of consciousness served as the basis for research done on consciousness for centuries after his work was established. Even as recently as 2020, philosophers are still puzzling over a definitive answer as to what consciousness is, demonstrated in this video. However, in the late 1800s, one man in particular delved into the concept and revolutionized the way we think about consciousness. That man was William James.

WHO WAS WILLIAM JAMES?

William James

 Williams James, regarded as the "Father of American Psychology," is a deeply influential figure in the fields of psychology and philosophy. Born in 1842 with vast opportunities for his education, James pivoted multiple times in his interests before finding a passion for studying the mind and how we think. James became deeply interested in the “aspects of the human condition that he couldn’t fully understand or describe,” (Kaag, 95) and as a result, spent much of his effort theorizing on topics that had questions with no established concrete answers. One such topic was consciousness.

Sick Souls, Healthy Minds
by John Kaag

    As discussed in Chapter 4 of Sick Souls, Healthy Minds, William James became utterly fixated on consciousness following the back-to-back deaths of his father and his son. He hoped that by studying the mind and human ability to understand life itself, he would be able to find reprieve from his grief within himself. From there, James threw himself into writing

The Principles of Psychology 

by William James

The Principles of Psychology, a book which studied the “neurological basis of habit formation and human volition” (Kaag, 94). Through digging deep into the factors of human action and the development of human will, James found that objectively attempting to dissect the mind overlooks the inner consciousness we are truly trying to capture. At the same time, James also found that by subjectively studying what James dubbed the “mind from within,” we destroy the organic human experience that makes us who we are. There is no way to fully study, nor any way to wholly sum up human consciousness.

Nevertheless, in what seems like a lack of conclusion, James actually managed to assert that consciousness is three things: personal, continuous, and changing. Because James observed a continual flow of conscious thought that was unique to each person, he developed the concept of “the stream of consciousness.”

WHAT IS “THE STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS”?

          To speak to James’ first descriptor of consciousness, each thought we hold is ours, and nobody will ever be able to think in the exact same way that we do. Remnants of Descartes and Locke come through in this idea, as our thought processes make up such a large part of who we are as individuals. In fact, John Kaag, author of Sick Souls, Healthy Minds, furthers this idea by saying:

          “Once your thoughts cease to be, well, so do you.”

Our “self” is tightly wrapped in our unique streams of consciousness, and one cannot exist without the other.

          The continuous and changing aspects of the stream of consciousness somewhat go hand in hand. Our minds are constantly in motion, and attempting to grab at singular thoughts is often futile—we’re onto the next one before we can fully digest the first. There is a steady flow from thought to thought without concrete stops and starts between ideas. Even when our minds are calmer, we still have the same amount of thought, we may just stay within one topic and fledge it out fully in our heads. James compares this to a bird’s life. The bird is generally in motion, quickly flitting from one thing to the next. Even when the bird perches, there is still much motion in its heartbeat, and its eyes as it surveys its surroundings, this motion is just happening in a single location.

WHY IS THIS CONCEPT STILL RELEVANT TO MODERN DAY?

          In present day, we often hear the term “stream of consciousness” thrown around with a somewhat negative connotation. It is equated to rambling, speaking without a sense of direction, and deeming one’s thoughts as needing some kind of disclaimer before they can be said aloud (“Oh, don’t mind me, this is just my stream of consciousness talking”). Alternatively, stream of conscious is also used as a writing style, and this, too, has a unfavorable connotation. Readers opposed to this writing style find that it can be disorganized and lacking structure, as the conventions so commonly used in writing are abandoned to attempt to capture the flow of human thought.

          Because of the firmly engrained association between the negative and the phrase “stream of consciousness,” we tend to find issue with the characteristics that make the “stream” so valuable for our lives today. James argues that allowing ourselves to live by the “stream” makes life so much more vivid and fulfilling. It is through “going with the flow” that we are able to live fully.

          Acknowledging the ever-changing nature of our mental state helps us not only better cope with external change, but also learn to appreciate the beauty of it. To quote John Kaag:

          “Any state of affairs, or more accurately, state of mind, is temporary.”

With this in mind, this means that even on our worst days, there will always be the potential for things to get better. Our devastation over a loss can become comfort as we bond more intensely with those still with us; our rage over an injustice can become gratification if action is taken to right the wrong; and our anxiety over a difficult task can become relieved joy when we complete it successfully. Because everything is temporary, the possibilities for a better headspace are endless, and the same applies for the world around us. The fluidity of life allows us to hope.

          Additionally, being aware of this fluidity helps us to be more aware of the changing world, even when change is not overly apparent. Knowing that everything changes allows us to be more in tune with happenings around us. We become less self-absorbed, and we gain the ability to connect more deeply with others, with nature, and the seemingly minute things that hold so much hidden beauty. The grass might be greener on our own side of the fence, if only we would take the time to really look at it and see how it grows.

LEARN TO "GO WITH THE FLOW"

    In closing, embracing our “streams of consciousness” is something that all people should try to do in their lives. We live in a society that discourages thought patterns that deviate from the norm, especially thought patterns that do not produce tangible (read: profitable) products. However, like how James found his escape in exploring the conscious mind, we, too, can find peace, joy, appreciation, and insight by thinking deeply and learning more about our own conscious minds.

Final Blogpost: SSHM Chapter 6:Wonder and Hope- Dyauni Johnson H03

 Introduction

Chapter 6 in SSHM begins when author John Kaag stumbles across a little sign on the Brooklyn Bridge meant to dissuade jumpers and cause them to reconsider life’s worth. The sign simply reads “Life is worth living” and this causes John to think about why the sign is needed at all. If life's meaning is so inherent and we should and be so grateful to exist in this world why do so many people choose to end it by jumping?

All of us at some point have battled with the question if life is worth living no matter what your background is. While some of us may believe that under different circumstances life would be better and we wouldn’t feel this way, existential questioning is a part of life none of us can escape. Existential questioning is universal, cutting across all backgrounds; whether rich or poor, Christian or atheist, we all grapple with the question of life's value.

Even philosopher William James struggled with mental illness and found himself asking the same questions but was able to find solace in pragmatism. Pragmatism emphasizes the practical consequences of beliefs and actions, suggesting that we are born without inherent purpose, and it's up to us to give meaning to our lives by living according to our own truths. Chapter 6 gives us a guide on how pragmatism can help each of us find our purpose and give meaning to an otherwise meaningless life.

William James Father of Pragmatism

 William James was born in 1842 in New York, New York to a wealthy father, Henry James Sr. His father’s wealth afforded James luxuries like a prestigious education having studied not only in America but Europe as well. But his upbringing also afforded James a different privilege: freedom. Because of his father’s distaste for his own Calvinist upbringing and the doctrine of predestination, he instilled the value of freedom in all of his children, encouraging them to pursue their passions and exercise their free will. This created an environment where freedom was not just encouraged but expected.

However, this freedom took a toll on the young William James. James grappled with the weight of expectations and the burden of choice but also felt weighed down by forces out of his control. Since birth, he had struggled with his health and continued for the rest of his adult life. When the Civil War broke out his younger brothers enlisted to fight for their country and uphold the abolitionist values they were taught. But the oldest William James was unable to do the same despite his wish to do so because of his poor health and eyesight. James was limited by his health and it wouldn’t be the last time it held him back from his goals. He would have several other life events that would reinforce this feeling of being not in control. Including the most influential time when he visited an asylum and was sent into a spiral after he saw a man with epilepsy whose life was completely taken over by his condition (SSHM CH1 pg 38). This event further reinforced James’s notion of impotence in the face of fate. These experiences led James to look for a different philosophy that could make sense of free will in a world where everything seemed so determined. Pragmatism gave James hope and a sense of control, helping him find meaning in a seemingly fixed world.

Existential Questioning and Wonder

James believed that existential questioning was essential to life and was the root of philosophical exploration. In the Middle Ages, while life was brutal, people had no reason to wonder things like “Who am I?” or “What is my purpose?" because it was widely believed that the only purpose of humanity was to live according to God’s will. But as the Enlightenment came to be people took to science and blind faith was pushed out, which left a hole in people’s life that hope and religion once filled. 20th-century existentialist philosophers and William James alike recognized the need for a new source of meaning and faith that was compatible with the complexity of the modern world. James’s view aligned with the Existentialists of the time who believed in confronting existential questions, especially those concerning existence, purpose, and identity, and using them as a catalyst for self-discovery. 

Hope

Another tenant of pragmatism is Hope or the will to believe, which emphasizes the importance of holding onto beliefs that offer meaning and purpose. In James’s essay “The Will to Believe” he first acknowledges the human need for hope, he argues that individuals often encounter situations where there isn’t enough evidence to justify belief, yet people still feel compelled to hold onto them for the sake of hope or practical necessity. In these cases, the will to believe alone acts as a powerful force that drives individuals to embrace beliefs that align with their individual experiences and give them a sense of direction. For James, hope is not just wishful thinking; it's a pragmatic choice that can only be made through genuine options.

According to Wiliam James, a genuine option must follow the criteria of being of a “forced, living, and momentous kind.”Basically what this means is that for a person to hold one belief over another the belief has to be relevant or plausible for the potential believer, there is no possibility of not choosing, and the outcome is important. The example James gave to a majority Christian group between a living and dead option was that if he asked them to be “a theosophist or a Muslim” it would be a dead option for them because their current beliefs don’t support either notion whereas if he asked them to be agnostic or Christian it would be a genuine option because the concept of there being a god or not is already plausible to them based on their experiences even if they haven’t committed to either belief yet. Gregory B Sanders gives a thorough explanation of all criteria but for our purpose, James emphasizes that beliefs motivated by hope can lead to positive outcomes, even if they are not grounded in scientific truth.

 

Search for Meaning through Religious Experiences

So we now know James believed you must have wonder and hope to create a meaningful life but what does that look like? Well, James believed that meaning was created through personal experiences, attitudes, and beliefs so a meaningful life would look different for everyone. However, James also believed that finding a purpose greater than yourself could connect you to what he called the “spiritual self”, which is the intimate, inner subjective part of ourselves.  The spiritual self is the most important but also overlooked part of selfhood. To William James, the best and easiest way to connect with the “spiritual self” is through religious experiences. Religious experiences offer individuals a glimpse of the deeper realms of existence and allow us to extract wisdom or insight from whatever belief system we follow, whether it be communicating with the dead or mystical visions of God, James believed Encounters with the divine can deeply change how we think and what we believe, helping us understand ourselves and our role in the world better. These experiences often inspire us to live more genuinely, making sure our actions and goals match our spiritual beliefs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Chapter 6 of "Sick Souls, Healthy Minds" explores the question of life's value, drawing from William James's pragmatic philosophy. It emphasizes the universal experience of existential questioning and the human need for purpose. James's approach suggests finding meaning through personal experience and belief, offering hope and a guide through life's uncertainties. By embracing existential wonder and hope, individuals can navigate life's complexities and find solace in their own truths. James also highlights the role of religious experiences in shaping our understanding of self and world. Ultimately, the chapter provides a way to find meaning in a meaningless world through William James’s teachings or Pragmatism.