SSHM Chapter One: "Determinism and Despair" | Final Report by Sawyer Crain

SSHM Chapter One: Determinism and Despair

"The normal process of life contains moments as bad as any of those with insane melancholy is filled with, moments in which radical evil gets its innings and takes its solid turn. The lunatic's visions of horror are all drawn from the material of daily fact."

-William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, 1903

Today, I will be covering the topic of determinism and the accompanying despair found within it, as covered in the first chapter of Sick Souls, Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life by John Kaag.

Determinism is the ideology regarding how our life is controlled, or  m,nm determined, by a force outside of our control. Whether by a benevolent entity or an unfeeling force akin to gravity, something decides the course of our lives. To some, this may appear as simply a fact of life. After all, "one's race, sex, socioeconomic condition, and health are factors that are largely accidental" (SSHM p.11). There are some parts of life that we simply cannot control nor hope to control. Understanding and coming to terms with this disheartening yet eternal truth is a key step in maturity that we should all strive to achieve. It is determinism's supposedly irrefutable “plan” that hits me, and many others, the wrong way.

In the early 19th century, Henry Sr. (William James’ father) was introduced to one such manifestation of determinism known as Calvinism. Under Calvinism, “humans are either blessed, and therefore “elected” to go to heaven, or cursed, and therefore damned to hell. But there’s no tried-and-true way of knowing what type of person you are” (SSHM p.13). The innate uncertainty of this branch of Christianity undoubtedly instilled a sense of fear in Henry. The possibility of having being deemed “unworthy” despite your sincere and continued service to the Christian faith is bound to lead to profound disillusionment. After all, how do you love and admire a deity with such a rash approach to punishment? 

“I had…been in the habit of ascribing to the Creator, so far as my life and actions are concerned, an outside discernment of the most jealous scrutiny, and had accordingly put the greatest possible alertness into his service and worship, until my will, as you have seen- thoroughly fagged out as it were with the formal, endless, heartless task of conciliating a stony hearted Deity- actually collapsed”

                 -Henry James Sr., The Literary Remains of the Late Henry James, 1884

This sentiment is one that I am personally quite familiar with. Through my upbringing, I have been exposed to numerous Christian denominations. From Presbyterian, to Baptist, to Methodist, I have delved into many varying beliefs that have all provided different perspectives, problems, and solutions. Throughout them all, one possible factor loomed over me: “What if I’m already lost?” The thought terrified me, and it terrified Henry.

Beyond this, this fear has more than just religious implications. Through this condition of “predestination”, the importance of one’s actions becomes practically null. Realizing the profound apathy associated with his own upbringing, Henry Sr. took strides to ensure his son, William, would have the freedom to become whomever he decided. Whether he strove to be a mathematician, a painter, or a doctor, Henry would ensure his son could achieve pure, unhindered freedom.

Unfortunately, this freedom would instead lead to William’s philosophical spiraling. As Kaag writes on page 18: “It is as if only after a person has been given everything that one has the chance to realize that everything might never be enough to really matter.” Ironically, through Henry’s attempt to ensure his son’s happiness, he neglected to take into account the consequences that would inevitably occur: the rude awakening and subsequent collapse of William’s manufactured happiness.

The process of understanding the human condition is an endless question. The most unsatisfying part is the fact that we will never have all the answers. So what’s the solution? In Henry’s case, life was determined by an external force, completely without his input. For William, life was determined by him, completely without external input…until it wasn’t. 

When approaching the idea of determinism, I find it best to simply determine your own path. If your life is determined by something you’ll never be able to understand, then maybe the best tactic is simply to not try to understand it. As is common in pragmatist philosophies, such as the “Squirrel in the Tree” allegory: the very entertainment of some ideas aren’t worth the possible mental anguish or frustration that they may bring. Sometimes, its best to just move on, determine your own reality, and create something that truly matters.

Seeing Beyond Ourselves: Understanding William James' "Blindness" and it's modern relevance by Gino Palilla

 It’s easy to judge someone else’s choices or values when they seem strange or unimportant to us. But as William James argues in his essay On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings, this judgment often reveals more about ourselves than others. Whether it’s the way a friend enjoys a strange hobby we can’t understand or a culture with traditions that seem foreign, James reminds us of the value of opening our minds to different perspectives.

For example, have you ever criticized someone’s lifestyle only to later realize you missed its importance to them? This essay makes us think about how we view others and what we might gain from seeing through their eyes.

TED Talk on Empathy

As I did my research, it was clear that William James was urging the reader to reflect on themself in order to understand our limitations. Once we understand our limitations, we can try to understand why others appreciate things that we might not. This idea of opening your eyes after understanding yourself reminded me of a TED Talk I watched in High School. A scientist named Brené Brown talks about how, in order to form true human connections, empathy and vulnerability must be involved. It's a beautiful message that is only a 20-minute watch. 

William James’ essay explores how humans are often "blind" to the values and meanings others assign to their lives. This blindness stems from judging others through the lens of our own subjective experiences. During a trip, James recounts his reaction to cleared forests in North Carolina, which he initially found ugly and destructive. He writes about his realization, after speaking with a local mountaineer, that these clearings represented hard work, perseverance, and success to those who lived there. James uses this as an example of how our first impression of something can make us blind to the bigger picture because we don't understand the importance to someone else. 

James praises Walt Whitman as a "contemporary prophet" celebrating all human experiences. James quotes Whitman's poem, Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, and illustrates how Whitman found beauty and meaning in everyday life and ordinary people, reinforcing the idea of appreciating others' perspectives.

James' argument resonates deeply with me, especially in today's world, where misunderstanding often leads to division. I feel like this essay really stood out to me as someone who had to adapt a lot to Tennessee. I moved from Pennsylvania in 6th grade, and it was a very big transition. From the views that people held about what a traditional family was to why people called shopping carts "buggies," it was a lot to take in and I didn't understand why. As I grew up and made friends, I realized that while there were things I thought were downright wrong/weird, I was still capable of looking past it and loving these people. In a time when division seems to have taken over most topics, I believe his call for empathy is more urgent than ever. The more we talk and learn about each other, the easier it is to see that maybe we do have core values that relate and aren't as different as they seem.

The question of "6 vs 9" has been used to describe differing perspectives for a long time, and the article I found goes to explain this in deeper detail. 

Article Link

A critic of William James' essay might say, "In a polarized society, recognizing others' perspectives is a nice idea but unrealistic. People are too hung up on their views."

I agree that this is a challenge, but small efforts can make a big difference. For instance, having genuine conversations with those who think differently or consuming media from every voice can open our eyes. Modern social media is like an echo chamber, but we can consciously choose to break out of it. Many historians also believe times of tension are characterized by this gridlock, which is why many studies have been done, and it's even recommended that to keep America healthy; we test ourselves with these conversations. 

Civil Discourse is essential

 James would likely propose the idea that our duty is not to achieve perfection in understanding but to continually work toward it: "To miss out on another’s world of meaning is to diminish our own humanity.". I believe James would just be happy with people making an effort, which unfortunately, is not seen a lot today. 

Revisiting my discussion question from the presentation: Can you think of a time when you realized your own perspective was limited in understanding someone else's experience?

For me, it was when I dismissed a coworker’s enthusiasm for participating in cosplay conventions. I couldn’t understand why someone would spend so much time and money on it. However, seeing their work and listening to their excitement, I realized it was a creative outlet and a source of joy that I had no right to look down on. I think it's healthy to take time to reflect back on times when we didn't realize we were being rude or not trying to understand someone's viewpoint. 

For my final part of this post, I want to touch back on how we can use James' work to better ourselves today. The idea of needing to listen more is timeless. When someone speaks, we listen but don't always HEAR. The important takeaway that James wants us to learn is to try to hear what people are saying and why they would. As globalization brings people closer, cultural misunderstandings can lead to conflict. James’ call for empathy can help bridge these gaps. In modern America, we see a lot of hatred towards other races, especially from people who are the faces of our very country. It's essential that we don't spread this hatred to the new generations to ensure an inclusive and understanding world. Teaching students to appreciate diverse perspectives can foster tolerance and inclusion from a young age.

In conclusion, William James’ essay makes us confront our own limitations and work for a deeper understanding of others. By seeing our "blindness" and working to overcome it, we not only better our own lives but also contribute to a more tolerant world. The next time you find yourself dismissing someone’s choices/values, pause and ask yourself, What might I be missing? If you read James' Essay and want to see more of his work, he has written so many wonderful essays. I would recommend The Will to Believe or What Makes a Life Significant?

If you truly want to better your life and start by incorporating this piece of advice from James, you can try exposing yourself to perspectives that challenge your own, whether through books, podcasts, or conversations. You can also practice listening, not judging, and reflecting on conversations in which you didn't agree on something with someone. By taking small steps, we can all move closer to seeing beyond ourselves.

Consciousness and Transcendence

    It's safe to say that, up there with "Where did the universe come from?" and "What is the meaning of life?" is that mysterious, difficult (or, in some respects, maybe impossible) to describe question: "What is consciousness?"

    It seems like just about everything there is to say has already been said about consciousness. It is not just a classic philosophical topic, but one that relates to literally every aspect of our experience. What is experience? Why do we have it? What else has it?

    To avoid confusion, here is the basic problem.

    Let's say René wants to see if George is conscious or has consciousness, in other words that he has some sort of internal experience of what is going on in his life (as opposed to just being a very complex organic machine with no inner life). So René throws a snowball at him. George then clutches his shoulder where the snowball hit him and says "Ouch!". Ok, thinks René, when I threw the projectile, George responded by clutching his shoulder and making an audible signal of distress, so that must mean that the snowball hurt him a bit. If he felt pain, that means he has the capacity to feel, and if he has the capacity to feel, that is an internal experience, so he must be conscious.

    At first glance, this seems all well and good. It is typically how we reason in our daily lives. If you see your friend reclining on the couch with his eyes closed, and you shout to get his attention only to be met with no reaction, you conclude your friend is probably asleep or unconscious, if not that he otherwise didn't hear you for some other reason (meaning he didn't experience or wasn't conscious of your shout). Conversely, if your friend does respond, you assume that he did experience it. But there is more to it than that.

    René gets curious, so next he throws a snowball at a glass vase sitting on a table. He throws it so hard that the vase shatters with a *CRASH*. Hmmm, he thinks, the glass broke up into pieces and made an audible signal that it was damaged, so that must mean that the snowball hurt it. If the snowball hurt it, then it has the capacity to feel hurt or pain, so it must have an internal experience. The vase must be conscious!

    Obviously, most of us probably don't think of glass vases as being conscious, despite the fact that they may deform and make a noise if they are damaged. But why, then, do we assume that a person is conscious when they do the same sort of thing under similar circumstances? The tricky part here is the transition from external physical reactions to an internal subjective experience. We assume the fact that the glass made a noise when it broke is simply a physical byproduct of the fact that the pieces were deformed, and the deformation itself is because of the force that was exerted on it by the snowball, not because of some sort of experience that the glass has of breaking. In other words, the glass doesn't feel itself breaking; it is just inanimate matter. Any reaction it may have is just a result of physical mechanisms. But why don't we use the same reasoning with people? Why don't we just assume that the reactions people give to events that happen outside of them are just due to neurological and physiological mechanisms? Why aren't people also just inanimate, though very intricate, machines?. In other words, why should René assume that George actually experiences the impact of the snowball? Why are George's neurological and physiological functions not simply causing him to behave in the way that he does without ever providing him with any internal experience of it all? Not just why, but how the subjective experience happens is a mystery. How could a set of physical mechanisms ever become a subjective consciousness? How complex does a system have to get before it becomes conscious? Is that even the right question to ask? What we are discussing is called the mind-body problem, and solutions to the problem can by difficult to pin down.

    Consequently, many theories have been developed in order to answer these questions.

MIND & MATTER

    When speaking about consciousness, dualism is the idea that mind and body are two separate kinds of things. The dualist philosopher that comes to mind first is René Descartes, who is known in part for his famous line "I think, therefore I am."

    What is interesting about Descartes' dualism is that he believed the mind could influence the body, but one can believe that mind and matter are two separate things without necessarily believing that this is how it works. For example, you could believe that the mind is running on its own course and does not interact with but merely accompanies matter (see "3.3 Parallelism" in the previously linked SEP article Dualism). Mind and matter would then be like two musicians in two separate isolated rooms of a recording studio, both improvising in C major at 120 beats per minute and both only hearing what they themselves are respectively playing, while the producer in another room can hear both at once. What will happen is that the two combined sounds will probably sound quite nice; they will harmonize, even though the two musicians are not interacting with each other at all. Another idea, epiphenomenalism, is that matter affects the mind, but not the other way around. This would be akin to if musician #1 played a few minutes of music that was then recorded and given to musician #2 to solo over. Musician #1's activity would certainly determine what musician #2 played, but musician #2's playing in no way determines what musician #1 had already recorded.

MIND & MATTER

    If you think about it for a while, you may find that there is another possible solution to the mind-body problem. If the only connection we have with the outside world is through our consciousness, and, as Descartes articulated, our consciousness is not always accurate, why don't we just cut out the outside world all together and assume that consciousness is all there is like George Berkeley? Perhaps this is a solid solution.

SUBJECTIVITY

    One of the fascinating things about consciousness is that it is subjective. Some may say that consciousness has an owner. That is, it only happens when someone or something is conscious. Otherwise, one might say that each consciousness is walled off from every other consciousness in some way, if we are going to avoid placing a separation between a being and its consciousness. Either way, William James explored the subjectivity of consciousness in The Principles of Psychology:

    My thought belongs with my other thoughts, and your thought with your other thoughts. 

    Whether anywhere in the room there be a mere thought, which is nobody's thought, we have 

    no means of ascertaining, for we have no experience of its like. The only states of 

    consciousness that we naturally deal with are found in personal consciousnesses, minds, 

    selves, concrete particular I's and you's. (pp. 226)

    James mentions how we have no "direct sight of a thought in another personal consciousness than its own" (pp. 226). Our consciousness is limited to our own experience. You have experienced this reality if you have ever wondered what life is like from someone else's perspective. What if you could swap minds with someone and see what their consciousness is like? Would it be more or less the same, or completely different?

    You may have seen the Vsauce video on this topic:

CONTINUITY

    James also observed that consciousness is continuous, meaning that it "does not appear to itself chopped up in bits" (pp. 239). He believed that our thoughts seem to bleed into each other without having abrupt breakages in between. Even when you sleep, you don't experience the void of consciousness between when you cease to be awake and when you reawaken. That is because you can't experience a void of experience. James masterfully explains it this way: "To expect the consciousness to feel the interruptions of its objective continuity as gaps, would be like expecting the eye to feel a gap of silence because it does not hear, or the ear to feel a gap of darkness because it does not see" (pp. 238).

    Even when certain thoughts seem to get cut off or changed so suddenly as to cause a disconnect between two events in our consciousness, James says that it is still continuous. He uses the example of a thunder-clap. "The thunder itself we believe to abolish and exclude the silence; but the feeling of the thunder is also a feeling of the silence as just gone; and it would be difficult to find in the actual concrete consciousness of man a feeling so limited to the present as not to have an inkling of anything that went before" (pp. 241).

    I find it helpful to think of James' idea of continuity in terms of the following. Trying to construct a consciousness in a discontinuous way would be akin to trying to build a circle out of toothpicks. No matter how many toothpicks you use, your constructed shape will only ever approach a perfect circle, but it would never quite get there. James' theory of continuous consciousness is best represented by a perfect circle, where there is always a smooth curve from one point to the next no matter how far you zoom in, rather than there being stretches of the shape were the points all follow the same straight line for a distance. With the circle, there are no breaks in curvature (like how there are no breaks in consciousness).

TRANSCENDENCE

    In Sick Souls, Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life, John Kaag discusses how William James seemed believe in the transcendent nature of simply letting go and experiencing life. So transcendence, for James, may have been a bit of a misnomer; it is not about escaping or going beyond this life, but appreciating and fully experiencing what is already in it.

    And there is that word again: experience. The mere fact that we can experience anything is somewhat amazing. Though we may never understand how the "ghost" relates to the "machine," there will always be value in appreciating the astonishing fact that the "ghost," despite all its mystery, exists.

Hunter Dickson

Also, Nigel Warburton's A Little History of Philosophy was used as a source.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

What do you think consciousness is?

How do you think consciousness relates to matter?

How does your view of consciousness influence your worldview (or is it more that your worldview influences your view of consciousness?)?

Andrew Brooks: Reckoning with the Macro through William James

As a nascent philosopher (or, let’s be honest, an amateur) I find William James’ essay On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings to be somewhat difficult to parse. Paragraphs go by and there are quotes and anecdotes and detailed descriptions and footnotes and I think I’m getting the gist of what he means...maybe? But then James moves on to another point and I’m lost again. This is slightly funny considering that William James is not exactly the hardest philosopher to comprehend. Mid-1800s English, sure, but it’s no ancient text by any stretch of the imagination. My confusion is initially frustrating for me but also intriguing. Laid out plainly is this wall of text that I know contains fascinating insights waiting to be understood, I just don’t quite get it yet. However, through study, I can extract that knowledge a little bit at a time. 

 

Picture of a young William James on a trip in Brazil.

On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings is an essay mainly about how we unfairly prioritize our own experience over others, how our empathy has a blind spot for the inner lives of strangers we don’t see. People don’t become people until they’ve gone out of their way to change our experience. But one aspect of the work that I’m interested in that I think gets overlooked is James’ attempts to describe and suggest ways to deal with an intensely powerful feeling that can hardly be studied. A realization of the truly massive scale of human joy and suffering and every experience in between. 

The dictionary of obscure sorrows calls it "occhiolism", and it is, in some regards, an idea only approachable through intense abstraction bordering on poetry. Clinical definition doesn’t really do justice to the grandness of the thought. James himself takes a crack at it a couple of different times, calling it, “this sense of limitless significance in natural things,” and, quoting William Wordsworth, “’authentic tidings of invisible things.’"

Definition of "occhiolism" from The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.

We live in an impossibly complex world, where every second there are millions in the deepest pit of despair and millions more having the best day of their life. Where exploitation, destruction, cruelty, and death brush alongside hope, kindness, selflessness, and genuine compassion. Amongst this chaos, are ourselves, individuals trying to live a ‘normal’ life.


I think where James can help those who may feel overwhelmed or even depressed at this idea is through re-framing this grandness not as sorrowful, but instead as exciting and joyful. In reference to a quote from his colleague Josiah Royce, he says:


“This higher vision of an inner significance in what, until then, we had realized only in the dead external way, often comes over a person suddenly; and, when it does so, it makes an epoch in his history. As Emerson says, there is a depth in those moments that constrains us to ascribe more reality to them than to all other experiences. The passion of love will shake one like an explosion, or some act will awaken a remorseful compunction that hangs like a cloud over all one's later day.”


While James is more so referencing the inner lives of those around us that we don’t see, I enjoy his point that an aspect that makes that emotion so deep is a great love for our neighbors. He also, evoking Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words, mentions the intensity that this revelation carries. It seems so significant that it can almost seem to pause the mundane and routine stresses of life.


James spends a substantial portion of his essay trying to describe ways to induce ‘occhiolistic’ feelings rather than avoid them. Indeed, James’ development of the philosophy of pragmatism is focused on centralizing our own and others’ experiences to reach conclusions relevant to everyday life. James believes in making sense of the chaos of the world through interpreting what it may mean to us and then sharing it with others. Joy emerges not from the absence of sorrow, but through our ability to dig through it to find those diamonds in the rough.


I think this is why (or a reason why) James advocates so strongly for spending time in nature and consciously considering our place. The world may be unimaginably vast and full of sadness, but that just means that we have more opportunities to connect with and improve the experiences of those around us. 

Picture of mountains in North Carolina, perhaps like the ones William James frequented.

Instead of becoming overwhelmed by despair, James argues that we should be excited for all the encounters life may bring. Facing the entire spectrum of emotion that existence offers and finding your own meaning within it is what makes life worth living.