Zach S.
Choosing hope and the search for meaning Hi, my name is Zach Sheets, and I am here to share with you, dear reader, the wise words of William James. In the subject I chose John ...
zachsheets1234.blogspot.comCaitlyn W. (#7) made her own blog: What Pragmatism Means?
Parker R.
Do We Need God
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted” said by Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov.
Do we need God? I have concluded that it is not just about finding a simple answer but rather a question that focuses on individuals’ meaning, morality, and human existence. This question is not answered with certainty, but rather inquiry, which drives us into a deeper nature to find our own answer to the question!
Section 1- The Many Faces of God:
In the book “Question Everything” by Peter Catapana I learned that there are many faces of God. Three of the largest faces that are known to the world include: Personal being, Cosmic architect, and Principle of order. The personal being is a face of God that is presented as a loving, intervening figure. This figure can be seen in the bible or Christianity. A Cosmic architect is a creator that was said to set the universe into motion but refuses to intervene. This is a God that is seen in science or other religious beliefs. The Principle of order is a face said to be behind the forces of nature and consciousness. This being is said to exist in older European faiths such as Greek or Irish. These faces are all very good examples of why god should exist and allows us to debate over the fact that they could exist.
Section 2- The Book “Question Everything” Explores These Faces:
In the book it stick to a singular definition for what a God is because it forces the reader to explore different version of what a god can be, as well as the arguments for the question “Do We Need God”. In the book it uses personal stories, philosophy, and culture to show how god has evolved over time. In older times God can be seen in real life. This is what is recorded in the old testament. On the other hand, we see many stories being told by people that say he meets them when they are asleep or through other methods. This deludes peoples faith causing the question “Do We Need God” to become a topic worth discussing. Whether you believe the question or not depends on which kind of god we are discussing as each has its own strong points and weak points of belief. If we are talking about a God who punishes or rewards, then we might need to discuss whether or not the rewards is worth the belief. We could be talking about a god that designed the cosmos, and if that’s the case then we need to discuss if that belief might lead to the destruction of the cosmos. These all force us to think about the variables of each faith and whether or not it can lead us to a better life. A good quote for this discussion is, "A faith which does not doubt is a dead faith." — Miguel de Unamuno, The Tragic Sense of Life. It is good because it displays the discussion that is being carried out.
Section 3- Do We Need God for Morality:
One of the most enduring arguments foe Gods necessity is the claim that without a divine authority, moral values lose their grounding. If God does not exist, then do right or wrong answers even matter? This concern is common and many philosophers and humanists argue that morality can emerge from human reason or empathy. In Sick Souls, Healthy Minds(SSHM), William James fights the need for meaning and moral order in a world that lacks certainty. Likewise ,Life Is Hard (LH) explores how people confront suffering and injustice without a religious appeal. Ethics draws on our capacity to care for the suffering of others. Crits argue that without god, morality becomes unstable but moral balues have always evolved with history allowing human values to increase throughout the years. This allows us to say that we may not need a God to be moral, but we do need each other at the very least, as well as commitment to empathy, reflection, and responsibility.
Section 4- My Position and My Best Critic:
My belief is very difficult considering I do not feel any God in my life. I am still young so my beliefs will change over time but in the current I believe that we do not need god. I believe humans have survived this long without physical evidence of a “God” that truly exists. I believe it is fair to put your faith in a being higher than ourselves as it offers a sense of security and disciple to others. On the contrary, it can just as easily mess a persons life up, allowing them to ruin themselves. What I mean by this is putting your life in the hands of a higher being limits your lifestyle which could be amazing for one person but horrible for the next. I believe that limiting myself to specific religious beliefs only hinders the opportunity hindered to me, considering that I must follow specific rules. I currently do not feel any God, but hope that the question “Do We Need God” can be answered with a “Yes” in the near future. While either answer could be right, one thing that I know is certain is that we, as humans, need the questions and concerns that the question brings up. These questions keep us on our toes and allow us to remain humbled. If a critic were to tell me, “Well that sounds like spiritual relativism- what anchors your values.” Id have to say that values are shared through human needs, rather than supernatural edicts. BBC - 404: Not Found
Section 5- Conclusion- Why the Question Matters More Than the Question:
I believe that each person’s journey of questioning life and issues such as “Do We Need God” might be our most treasured pursuit, as it keeps humans from ever remaining dormant. The more we question things, the more likely we will be to finding a solution for the answer. This question might not have been answered now, but one day we might be in the need of a God that can get us out of a supernatural situation. If that were the case then all we can do is pray that a real God might save us. "A faith which does not doubt is a dead faith." — Miguel de Unamuno, The Tragic Sense of Life.
LINKS:
Section 2:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/p/?LinkId=255141
Section 3:
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Section 4:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/
Section 5:
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/can-there-be-morality-without-god
Final Presentation:
Kal I.Blog Post: A Need for Reflection in Chapter 13 of Question Everything: A Stone Reader
Chapter 13 of Question Everything: A Stone Reader is titled “Now What” and it calls out an almost dystopian sounding world, one that is politically fractured, ecologically doomed, and morally disoriented. This chapter begins with three essays that set a tone that calls for reflection and a change for the better. These essays are Roy Scranton’s “We’re Doomed. Now What?”, Esther Leslie’s “Are We the Cows of the Future”, and Espen Hammer’s “A Utopia for a Dystopian Age.” Each of these texts look at a world on fire calling readers to reflect and resist this change for the worse. These texts tell the reader to look towards a brighter future that they have to work towards. In this blog post, I will explore these texts, their critiques, and even share my own views.
Roy Scranton: Accepting Doom
Scranton’s essay begins with a pretty drastic claim: “We’re doomed.” This is not someone who is preparing for doomsday on TV, but instead someone who is looking at the scientific reality of climate change. Scranton looks at this, and instead of offering a cure all solution, he asks the reader to reflect and prepare for the coming times.
This essay hit hard when I read it. Scranton does not fake that things are alright, rather he clearly states the opposite. To say we are doomed and still try to act with purpose is the deepest form of courage according to Scranton. This could mean something as simple as showing up for a friend even if you cannot stop climate change.
One critique I could think of was that this stance might promote fatalism. If we are doomed, we do not need to do anything anyways. I however, would argue that Scranton is telling the reader to act and be resilient even if we do not know what is going to happen. We have to accept that this could be the future, but we still have to try and find meaning.
Watch: Roy Scranton on Climate Change
Esther Leslie: Human Cattle
Leslie’s “Are we the Cows of the Future?” gives an unsettling perspective on what the future of humanity could hold. She argues that humans are resembling domesticated livestock more and more under capitalism. She believes that we are becoming pacified and dumbed down by the technology of our age and that we are risking no longer actively participating in life.
The metaphor of humans as cattle is powerful as it gets the reader to question if we as consumers really have freedom. We may feel free, but we are getting turned into patterns of consumption, making humans more docile as a whole.
This view could seem cynical. How controlled are we in our day-to-day lives. Leslie’s point garners respect when we take a step back and look at the way society is moving. I don’t believe the point is to be afraid of technology, but rather the effect this new technology is having on people.
Some might say that Leslie is looking for a lost age of authenticity that was never there. But one could argue that she is looking towards the future. This is a warning for what might come. People have to start questioning who is benefiting from these products and what they are doing to us.
For a related exploration of these themes, check out Shoshana Zuboff’s work on surveillance capitalism.
Espen Hammer: A Utopia for a Dystopian Age
Espen Hammer strikes a different note in his essay. Scranton and Leslie look into dehumanization and decay while Hammer looks to utopian thinking. This is not some misguided naïve dream of his, but as a necessity. In a fragmented world Hammer asks if we are still able to envision better worlds.
The answer Hammer gives is yes, but he backs this with caution. A Utopian view must remain humble and be open to revision. Hammer wants a utopia that fosters community and not control. A true Utopia.
This essay really made me think. I think that utopian thinking is very unrealistic especially with the way the world is today. Hammer hits it on the head with his essay. There is no harm in imagining a better future for ourselves if we remain humble. It is not a way to escape, but a way to build towards something.
Some may say that utopian thinking leads to authoritarianism. This is possible, but Hammer is not arguing for blueprints to this new world. He is asking for a commitment to do what we can to reach it; to envisioning a better world for ourselves.
For some similar ideas read this.
Responding to Critics
A strong critic of these texts may say it is all too abstract. The world is burning and here I am quoting philosophers. My response to this is ideas form action. These three texts ask us to look to the future and give us tools to help carry on and build a better one for ourselves.
Discussion Questions:
Do you think we can accept the limits we have without just quitting like Scranton believes?
Is technology taking away our ability to think for ourselves? And if so What do you think we should do about it?
Final Reflections
Chapter 13 is not an easy read that gives easy answers to easy problems. Instead, it asks some of the hardest questions I have tried to answer. What are we becoming? What really matters as the world burns? What can we do to move forward? Each of these three authors offer different perspectives on these problems, but none of them are looking to avoid these problems.
That’s the takeaway to me. Keep looking forward. Keep your eyes on what really matters and do not quit. Even if we are in some kind of global crisis, we cannot permit ourselves to give up. Keep thinking and keep acting with a purpose.
Chapter 13 asks now what. The answers that we get are not solutions. The way to face these problems is by looking ahead.
Further Readings and Media
TED Talk: Emily Esfahani Smith – There’s More to Life Than Being Happy
How to Think Like a Utopian
Is Technology Making Us Lazy? The True Impact on Productivity and Innovation
Nathan W. (#5)Understanding Grief: A Deep Dive into Chapter 3 of Life Is Hard by Kieran Setiya
By Nathen Weinrauch – 005
Grief is one of the most universal yet misunderstood experiences of being human. In Chapter 3 of Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way, MIT philosopher Kieran Setiya offers a profound reflection on what it means to grieve—and how we might navigate that difficult emotional terrain with honesty and care.
Grief Is Not a Straight Line
The notion that grief unfolds in predictable stages—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—is widely accepted but misleading. Setiya challenges this idea head-on, suggesting that grief is instead a chaotic and fluctuating experience.
“Grief is not a process that ends with closure,” Setiya writes. “It’s not a problem to be solved, but a part of who we are.”
Much like a wave that keeps crashing unpredictably, grief revisits us at unexpected times. The unpredictability is part of its nature—and something to be embraced rather than feared.
Grief as a Sign of Love
One of the most moving insights from Setiya is his redefinition of grief as an extension of love.
“If we didn’t grieve, we wouldn’t have loved.”
This reframing shifts the narrative. Rather than being an emotional failing or weakness, grief becomes a testament to our capacity for connection. It hurts because it mattered. In this way, grieving is not something to suppress or rush through—it’s something to honor.
Pop Culture Meets Philosophy: WandaVision
Setiya illustrates this idea through pop culture, particularly a scene from Marvel’s WandaVision. In one memorable exchange, Vision says:
“What is grief, if not love persevering?”
This moment captures the philosophical essence of grief—it doesn't end when a person is gone. The relationship continues in memory, in absence, and in the way it shapes our ongoing lives.
Why Mourning Rituals Matter
Another central idea in Chapter 3 is the role of mourning rituals. Setiya emphasizes that structured practices—funerals, memorials, and even personal daily rituals—provide a container for our grief.
“Rituals give a structure to grief it would not otherwise have.”
These customs don’t erase the pain, but they acknowledge it, giving us a way to process our sorrow communally and symbolically. They can be deeply healing.
The Fragmented Reality of Grief
To highlight the fragmented nature of grief, Setiya references B.S. Johnson’s novel The Unfortunates, a book designed to be read in any order. Like grief, the story lacks a fixed narrative, reinforcing that loss doesn’t come with a neat plotline.
“Loss is part of life’s texture—not an interruption, but an entanglement.”
We often want to impose structure or closure on grief, but Setiya warns that this impulse can be misguided. Instead, accepting the irregularity of mourning allows us to experience it authentically.
Debunking the ‘Grief Work’ Theory
Setiya takes aim at Freud’s concept of “grief work”—the idea that mourning must be consciously “completed” to move on. He cites modern research that shows people often continue bonds with the deceased in healthy, adaptive ways.
“The idea that grief must be overcome is not only incorrect; it can be cruel.”
By allowing ongoing connection—through memories, storytelling, even symbolic rituals—we respect both our grief and our love.
A Personal Reflection
As someone who has experienced profound loss, I found Setiya’s chapter comforting and validating. In our grief-avoidant culture, we’re often told to “move on” or “stay strong,” which can make sorrow feel isolating. But Setiya affirms that the pain of loss is not a sign of weakness. It’s a marker of meaning.
After my father passed away, I spent months feeling disoriented—like I had lost my map of the world. Reading Life Is Hard reminded me that this sense of rupture is not something to fix but something to live with. The pain changes, but it never disappears. And that’s okay.
Grief as a Moral and Existential Experience
Setiya also touches on the ethical dimensions of grief. Grief, he argues, is a form of care. It honors the dead. It acknowledges the impact someone had on us—and still has. In a world where productivity is often prioritized over emotional well-being, this reminder is radical.
Philosophically, grief can deepen our understanding of what it means to be human. It exposes our interdependence. It reveals our vulnerability. And it challenges the illusion of control that modern life so often promotes.
Final Thoughts
Grief is hard. But as Kieran Setiya shows us in Chapter 3 of Life Is Hard, it is also meaningful. It reveals the depth of our relationships and the richness of our emotional lives. By confronting grief with openness, curiosity, and philosophical insight, we may not escape the pain—but we can learn to walk through it with greater compassion and understanding.
Conner N.
The Philosophy of Pain: Living With It, Not Despite It
By Conner Nunley
“To be in pain is to have the world close in around you.” — Kieran Setiya (LH, p. 33)
Pain is something we all experience—physically, emotionally, existentially. But what if, instead of treating pain as something to eliminate or ignore, we used it as a lens for understanding what it means to be human?
In his book Life is Hard (LH), philosopher Kieran Setiya invites us to do just that. Through a compelling blend of personal narrative, ethical inquiry, and philosophical history, Setiya argues that we shouldn’t seek to “solve” pain, but rather learn how to live with it. This blog explores the “Pain” chapter of Life is Hard and confronts the difficult question: Can pain ever be a source of meaning or connection, rather than just suffering?
Setiya's Personal and Philosophical Lens
Setiya doesn’t shy away from the personal. He discloses his own chronic pelvic pain, a condition without a clear cause or cure (LH, p. 31). It’s this intimate struggle that anchors his philosophical reflections. His vulnerability becomes a way of making the abstract painfully real.
Philosophers have long tried to grapple with pain. Stoics like Epictetus advised detachment. Pain is “nothing to us,” they argued, unless we choose to judge it so. But Setiya challenges this view. “To pretend that pain is merely a judgment is to refuse compassion to those in agony” (LH, p. 36).
Instead of denial or detachment, Setiya urges us to recognize pain as part of life’s texture—something that can’t always be cured, but can be shared.
“Kieran Setiya on Chronic Pain and Philosophy” – Philosophy Overdose (YouTube)
What Philosophy Offers Pain (and What It Doesn’t)
Stoicism: Detachment as Power?
It’s tempting to find solace in Stoicism. The idea that pain is only bad if we think it is offers psychological relief. But as Setiya rightly points out, this risks gaslighting real experiences (LH, p. 37). Chronic sufferers don’t need to be told their agony is a mindset issue.
“To live well with pain, you need to face it, not flinch from it” (LH, p. 41).
Buddhism: Awareness Without Clinging
Setiya also explores Buddhist perspectives. Here, pain is tied to attachment—suffering arises when we cling to things that change. Meditation and mindfulness are offered as paths toward liberation from this cycle. But again, Setiya doesn’t endorse a wholesale retreat from the world. His approach is less about escaping pain and more about making space for it.
William James and the “Sick Soul”
John Kaag’s Sick Souls, Healthy Minds (SSHM) reflects on William James’s crisis of meaning—his "sick soul" phase—which resonates with Setiya’s emphasis on resilience, not resolution. Pain isn’t something James escaped; he grew around it. Setiya, too, draws from this well: philosophy doesn’t fix suffering, but it might help us reframe it (SSHM, p. 89).
The Power of Solidarity in Suffering
Setiya believes in the ethical power of shared experience. When we witness another’s pain, we recognize something universal. In a world obsessed with cures and fixes, simply saying “I believe you” is an act of love.
From A Little History of Philosophy (LHP), we see this impulse echoed in Nietzsche, who declared that we must embrace suffering as part of the human drama. “[Nietzsche] wanted us to affirm life, even with its pain” (LHP, p. 144).
Responding to the Skeptic: “Is This Just Justifying Suffering?”
A thoughtful critic might ask: “Isn’t this all just intellectualizing pain to feel better about it?”
Fair question. There’s a fine line between philosophical meaning-making and romanticizing suffering. But Setiya isn’t suggesting we should suffer or that suffering is “good.” He’s arguing that, since pain is unavoidable, we might as well find ways to integrate it into a meaningful life.
In fact, denying pain’s reality—or seeing it as failure—leads to more isolation. As Susan Neiman writes in Why Grow Up? (WGU), true maturity means facing difficulty without illusion (WGU, p. 71). Setiya’s work embraces that ethos: honest, realistic, but never fatalistic.
For another angle, Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland (F) critiques America’s obsession with magical thinking and avoidance of reality. In this light, confronting pain philosophically is a countercultural act (F, p. 301).
Philosophical Takeaways
● Don’t expect a cure: Especially for chronic pain or grief, sometimes the “fix” isn’t medical—it’s emotional or communal.
● Solidarity matters: Just knowing someone else “gets it” can be a lifeline. ● Pain is real—and so is meaning: The two are not mutually exclusive.
Additional reading: Setiya’s blog and podcast “Five Questions” where he interviews contemporary philosophers.
Jackson P. (#6)Solitude, Leadership, and the Inner Moral Life
In an age of constant connection, solitude feels almost extreme. Yet, as explored in Chapter
13 of Question Everything: A Stone Reader, three essays, Megan Craig's "The Courage to Be
Alone," William Deresiewicz's "Solitude and Leadership," and David Brooks's "The Moral
Bucket List," argue that solitude is not isolation. Instead, it is the condition under which we
create moral clarity, authentic leadership, and a deeper self.
Solitude as the Site of Becoming
Megan Craig opens her reflection by reminding us that solitude is often perceived as
loneliness or abandonment, something to be feared. But she turns this notion on its head.
Drawing from existential and psychoanalytic traditions, she emphasizes solitude not as
emptiness but as a space of discovery.
"Solitude demands courage because it means turning away from the world's noise to hear
oneself." — Craig
Craig points to Simone Weil and Virginia Woolf as thinkers who embraced this internal
space. For Weil, attention is an ethical act; to truly listen to others, one must first be able to
hear themselves. Craig's claims are simple: solitude is not withdrawal but an orientation for
preparation for facing the world with clarity.
Read more about Megan Craig
Stony Brook Faculty Page - Megan Craig
Solitude and the Foundations of Leadership
William Deresiewicz, in his lecture at West Point, argues that authentic leadership isn't about
charisma or résumé padding. It's about the ability to think independently, and this requires
solitude.
"You can't think deeply or honestly about anything if you're always surrounded by people
telling you what to think." — Deresiewicz
His message resonates deeply with young people wanting to be leaders who have grown up
multitasking, networking, and constantly responding. Deresiewicz draws from Thoreau and
Emerson to support his claim that solitude isn't a luxury; it's a discipline. Without time to
reflect, leaders use existing norms. With solitude, they may discover their original
convictions and the courage to act on them.
Read the full speech:
The American Scholar – Solitude and Leadership
An Excerpt:
"The position of the leader is ultimately solitary. You must make decisions no one else can
make. That takes quiet, that takes courage, and that takes being alone with your thoughts." —
Deresiewicz
Solitude and the Moral Life
David Brooks's "The Moral Bucket List," first published in The New York Times, offers
another angle: solitude as the site of moral growth. He distinguishes between "résumé
virtues" (skills and accomplishments) and "eulogy virtues" (character and kindness).
Brooks tells stories of some people who, through suffering, failure, and reflection, achieved
humility, grace, and compassion. These people didn't become "deep" by accident. They made
"unsung choices," often in solitude, challenging their egos and redefining their values.
"They had to go down to come up." — Brooks
Read the essay:
The Moral Bucket List – NYT
Bringing the Pieces Together
The idea that solitude is not an escape is what ties these three pieces together. It is ethical
work.
Craig suggests solitude is the soil where our awareness grows. Deresiewicz expands on this:
that's where independent thought, and thus leadership, starts. Brooks shows how solitude
promotes the introspection that develops into character.
Related texts:
Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own
Thoreau's Walden
These are not abstract concepts, as they affect our lives directly. Consider the following:
What is your life like when no one else is watching? Are you engaging in activities that are
aligned with what you believe? Do you ever stop scrolling long enough to ask yourself why
you are doing what you are doing?
Excerpt from Thoreau's Walden:
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... and not, when I came to die,
discover that I had not lived."
(An image of the cabin from Walden from Here)
That brings me to the first question I asked during my presentation:
Do you think if you went into solitude, you would return with the same morals and
ethics? Or would you change — and how drastically?
Responding to Critics
Of course, solitude is a luxury. Not everyone can afford time alone. Some may find silence a
frightful idea, not enlightening. Others may grow more radicalized or withdrawn in solitude,
not wiser.
That's fair. And there's truth to it. Solitude, like any practice, depends on how it's approached.
As Rebecca Solnit writes, aloneness can be fertile or barren. What matters is our intentions.
The solitude these authors praise is not isolation from responsibility — it's engagement with
the self, the conscience, and the human condition. It is the opposite of self-indulgence. It is
preparation for moral action.
Why It Matters — Especially Now
I wish to leave you with one more question, and it is the one that binds all three of these ideas
together:
Can authentic leadership or real maturity exist without periods of self-examination in
solitude?
These are not just philosophical questions. They are desperate, especially for young people
making choices in a world of noise and hurry. Whatever we decide on career, love, or
responses to injustice, the worth of our choices depends on the depth of our reflection. And
that depth can be discovered in stillness.
A Personal Take
I am a college student, usually between constant stimulation and needing to breathe and
think. Phones are ringing, homework is piling up, and every second is useable. But I have
learned from these essays (specifically Craig's and Deresiewicz's) that stepping back is not
caving in. It's stepping further into one's goals.
The moments where I've grown the most (morally, emotionally, intellectually) weren't loud.
They were quiet. Sometimes, it was reflecting after a failure, walking without music, or just
staring out a window until I stopped performing and started reflecting. Those moments made
me realize how rare authentic thought is and how essential it is to leadership and moral
development.
We are not just what we produce or post; we are what we reflect on. And without solitude,
that reflection is impossible. These essays helped me see that solitude is not a detour from
success but a discipline that defines it.
Derieno Smith (#6)
Finding Light in Loss: Emerson’s Journey Through Grief and Nature
In *Three Roads Back: How Emerson, Thoreau, and William James Responded to the Greatest
Losses of Their Lives*, Robert D. Richardson explores how personal tragedies shaped the
philosophies of these American thinkers. Focusing on Ralph Waldo Emerson, the book delves into
how the death of his young wife, Ellen Tucker, profoundly impacted his spiritual journey and
intellectual development.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Image Source: World History Encyclopedia)
A Love Lost, A Faith Shaken
Emerson married Ellen Tucker in 1829. Tragically, Ellen died of tuberculosis in 1831 at the age of
20. Her death deeply affected Emerson, leading him to question his Unitarian faith. In a journal
entry dated March 29, 1832, he wrote, "I visited Ellen's tomb & opened the coffin." This act
symbolizes his profound grief and the beginning of his spiritual transformation.
Ellen Louisa Tucker (Image Source: Walden Woods Project)
Nature as a New Spiritual Path
After resigning from his ministerial position, Emerson traveled to Europe. In Paris, he visited the
Jardin des Plantes, a botanical garden that left a lasting impression on him. There, he observed the
interconnectedness of nature, which inspired him to seek spiritual understanding through the
natural world rather than traditional religious doctrines.
Jardin des Plantes, Paris (Image Source: Condé Nast Traveler)
This experience laid the foundation for his essay "Nature," where he writes, "In the presence of
nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows." Emerson's shift towards
finding divinity in nature marked the beginning of the Transcendentalist movement, emphasizing
individual intuition and the inherent goodness of people and nature.
Nature and Other Essays (Image Source: Barnes & Noble)
From Grief to Growth
Emerson's journey illustrates how personal loss can lead to profound philosophical and spiritual
growth. His transformation from a grieving widower to a leading thinker demonstrates the human
capacity to find meaning and resilience in the face of adversity.
Personal Reflections on Emerson's Journey
Q1: How does Emerson’s shift from organized religion to finding spiritual meaning in
nature reflect broader changes in coping with grief?
Honestly, I think Emerson’s shift is super relatable, especially today. A lot of people, when they go
through something painful—like losing someone close—start questioning the beliefs they grew up
with. Sometimes religion doesn’t feel like it’s enough, or it doesn’t give the kind of comfort you
need. For Emerson, turning to nature felt more real. Like, nature didn’t lie to him or give him
answers he didn’t believe. It just *was*. And in that stillness, in that cycle of life and death and
growth, he found something to hold onto. I think today people do something similar—going on
hikes, being near the ocean, journaling outside—anything to get out of their head and reconnect
with something bigger than themselves. It's like, when everything else is confusing, nature doesn’t
judge you. It just keeps going.
Q2: What can Emerson's experience teach us about the relationship between personal
loss and philosophical transformation?
I feel like Emerson shows that loss doesn't just wreck you—it *shifts* you. Sometimes in the
moment, it feels like you're falling apart, but later, you realize you're rebuilding yourself into
someone with a deeper view of life. Emerson went from being a minister with a very structured
belief system to basically saying, "I have to find my own truth." And that’s huge. Losing Ellen didn’t
just break his heart—it broke open a new way of thinking. And I think that’s something a lot of
people go through. You lose someone, or something big happens, and it forces you to think
differently, feel differently, even believe differently. It’s like grief cracks you open, and you either
drown—or you grow something inside the cracks.
Jonathan Dopp (#7)
Sick Souls Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life
by John Kaag; Prologue
William James is considered the father of philosophy and psychology, but you would
never have expected he didn’t see any of it coming, as he spent many years going through
depression. He contemplated taking his own life, but never did it because of his own philosophy.
This was the philosophy of pragmatism, which is that truth should be judged by its consequences
and how it impacts life. Basically, what this is saying is that you should make sure that whatever
you believe in, whatever your truth is, should be looked at practically and see how that belief
shapes your day-to-day life. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/
This philosophy is what led to the book “Sick Souls, Healthy Minds: How William James
Can Save Your Life,” being written by John Kaag. John Kaag begins his book by stating how
William James’ philosophy saved his life, or as he said encouraged him to not be afraid of life. In
this prologue, he then goes on to talk about a time when he went on a ride with his bike and saw
police tape at William James Hall, where a man named Steven Rose took his own life.
This incident led him to write this book that very day. William James had two decades of
dealing with depression and what got him through it was something that John Kaag stated might
have even saved people like Steven Rose, which is that “maybe.” Maybe life is worth enough to
keep on going. John Kaag said towards the very end of this prologue that James would have
suggested that that is not the way to exit life, that we should go about life seeing how we can find
our way to live, to fully live.
When it comes to this philosophy, there’s a specific character that comes to mind. This
character is from an anime named Attack on Titan and the character specifically is Eren Yeager.
He is the protagonist, and his ideals are very similar to at least the definition of what pragmatism
is. Eren Yeager seeks truth and makes decisions that lead to an outcome he wants, even if that
means throwing away his moral code and doing something that would otherwise be wrong in
every way imaginable. Other than his big goals that he strives for in the anime, he’s good at
changing up his plans in the heat of the moment or keeping them so flexible that they can be
changed.
Another character who is pragmatic in a way is Erwin Smith. He gives a speech in the
middle of a battle against the titans trying to keep up the morality of his men. He tries to keep
everyone open to the truth of how everything is.
Brady Moore (#5)
Darvon Hassan
Benjamin S.
How William James Faced His Crisis and Why It Still Matters Today
Have you ever felt like life is just happening to you? Like no matter what choices you make,
things still end up the same? That your decisions might not actually mean anything?
If you’ve ever had that feeling, you’re definitely not alone. In fact, one of the most influential
American philosophers — William James — felt it so strongly that it almost broke him. In
John Kaag’s book Sick Souls, Healthy Minds, especially in the first chapter titled
“Determinism and Despair,” we see just how deep this crisis ran for James, and how he
eventually found a way to live — not by ignoring his doubts, but by choosing to believe in
the power of his own choices.
It’s a story that might feel surprisingly modern, even though it happened more than a century
ago.
William James: A Man Who “Had It All”… and Still Felt Lost
On paper, William James was set up for success. He was born into a wealthy, intellectual
family in 1842. His father was a religious philosopher, his younger brother Henry James
became a literary icon — and William? He was expected to shine just as brightly.
But things didn’t go that way. James bounced from one path to another: he tried being a
painter, then a medical student, then a scientist. Nothing felt quite right. He struggled with
poor health for most of his life — not just physically, but mentally. He suffered from serious
depression. And more than anything, he struggled with a deep, personal, philosophical
question: Do our choices actually matter?
At the heart of this question was something called determinism. In simple terms, determinism
is the idea that everything — every action, thought, or feeling — is the result of previous
causes. Your upbringing, your brain chemistry, the laws of physics, genetics — all of it might
mean that free will is just an illusion. That everything is already set in motion, and you’re just
along for the ride.
This idea crushed James.
Kaag paints a vivid picture of James as someone spiraling — not just because life was hard,
but because his beliefs told him that none of it mattered. He wasn’t just sad. He was, as Kaag
writes, in a “philosophical and spiritual crisis.” If free will didn’t exist, then why get out of
bed? Why care? Why try?
James was teetering on the edge — not only emotionally, but existentially. He even
considered suicide. It’s hard to overstate how close he was to giving up.
The Spark That Changed Everything: A French Philosopher Named
Renouvier
Then something happened — not a miracle, not a total turnaround, but a tiny spark.
In 1870, James read the work of Charles Renouvier, a French philosopher who argued
something really bold:
Even if we can’t prove that free will exists, we can choose to believe in it.
And that choice? That choice is, in itself, a free act.
This lit something in James. He realized he didn’t need airtight evidence to begin living
differently. He could start by acting as if his choices mattered — and see what happened from
there.
In his journal, he wrote what might be one of the most important lines in American
philosophy:
“My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will.”
It didn’t magically fix his life. He still struggled. But that small decision — to believe, even
in the face of doubt — gave him a path forward. It wasn’t a cure, but it was hope. And
sometimes, that’s enough.
From Despair to Action: The Birth of Pragmatism
This decision eventually became the seed for William James’s larger philosophical project:
pragmatism.
Now, pragmatism gets thrown around a lot today, often as just “being practical.” But James’s
version was deeper than that. He basically asked:
Instead of worrying about whether something is, objectively “true” … why not ask if it helps
us live better?
For James, the point of philosophy wasn’t to sit in an ivory tower debating hypotheticals. It
was to help people live. To give them tools to face a chaotic, uncertain world.
So if believing in free will helps us feel more responsible, more hopeful, more capable —
then it’s a belief worth holding on to. Not because we’ve proven it beyond all doubt, but
because it gives us a reason to act.
John Kaag, in Sick Souls, Healthy Minds, makes a big deal out of this shift and for good
reason. Because in a world where we’re often paralyzed by uncertainty (Should I take this
job? Go to that school? Text that person back?), James reminds us that we don’t need to know
everything before we make a move. We can start by choosing to believe that what we do
matters. And often, it’s that belief itself that allows us to move forward.
So… What About Us?
I think that’s what makes William James feel so relevant today. He wasn’t some perfect
philosopher who “figured it all out.” He was a human being who struggled, doubted, and
suffered. But he found a way to keep going — by choosing action over paralysis, belief over
despair.
In today’s world, where so many of us are dealing with anxiety, depression, or just plain
confusion about our purpose — this message hits home.
You don’t have to be certain to make a choice. You don’t have to have a five-year plan.
Sometimes, just getting out of bed, sending the email, saying yes (or no) — that’s a
meaningful act. And over time, those small choices can build a life.
I keep coming back to a question we discussed in class after my presentation:
Can you think of a time when you made a choice without being sure — and it ended up
shaping who you are?
For me, I think about moments like applying to a college I wasn’t sure I’d get into. Or talking
to someone who later became a close friend. Or even just pushing myself to do this
philosophy project when I did not feel ready.
None of those things felt certain at the time. But looking back, they mattered. They moved
me forward. And that is what James is getting at.
Final Thoughts
William James shows us that we do not need to be confident or clearheaded to live
meaningful lives. We just need to believe — even a little — that our actions count. That
we’re not just leaves in the wind.
Kaag’s Sick Souls, Healthy Minds reminds us that even philosophers aren’t immune to
despair. But it also shows us that philosophy isn’t just abstract thinking — it can be a lifeline.
It can help us make sense of our hardest moments, and maybe even help us take the next step.
So, the next time you feel stuck — like life is just happening to you — maybe remember
James. And let your first act of free will be to believe in free will.
Who knows where it might lead?
WIN_20250503_00_27_38_Pro.mp4