Pragmatism

Pragmatism

       A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking

To the Memory of John Stuart Mill

from whom I first learned the pragmatic openness of mind

and whom my fancy likes to picture as our leader were he alive to-day.

Preface

The lectures that follow were delivered at the Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York. They are printed as delivered, without developments or notes. The pragmatic movement, so-called—I do not like the name, but apparently it is too late to change it—seems to have rather suddenly precipitated itself out of the air. A number of tendencies that have always existed in philosophy have all at once become conscious of themselves collectively, and of their combined mission; and this has occurred in so many countries, and from so many different points of view, that much unconcerted statement has resulted. I have sought to unify the picture as it presents itself to my own eyes, dealing in broad strokes, and avoiding minute controversy. Much futile controversy might have been avoided, I believe, if our critics had been willing to wait until we got our message fairly out.

If my lectures interest any reader in the general subject, he will doubtless wish to read farther. I therefore give him a few references.

In America, John Dewey's 'Studies in Logical Theory' are the foundation. Read also by Dewey the articles in the Philosophical Review, vol. xv, pp. 113 and 465, in Mind, vol. xv, p. 293, and in the Journal of Philosophy, vol. iv, p. 197.

Probably the best statements to begin with however, are F. C. S. Schiller's in his 'Studies in Humanism,' especially the essays numbered i, v, vi, vii, xviii and xix. His previous essays and in general the polemic literature of the subject are fully referred to in his footnotes.

Furthermore, see G. Milhaud: le Rationnel, 1898, and the fine articles by Le Roy in the Revue de Metaphysique, vols. 7, 8 and 9. Also articles by Blondel and de Sailly in the Annales de Philosophie Chretienne, 4me Serie, vols. 2 and 3. Papini announces a book on Pragmatism, in the French language, to be published very soon.

To avoid one misunderstanding at least, let me say that there is no logical connexion between pragmatism, as I understand it, and a doctrine which I have recently set forth as 'radical empiricism.' The latter stands on its own feet. One may entirely reject it and still be a pragmatist.

Harvard University, April, 1907.

CONTENTS

Preface

EXPANDED CONTENTS

PRAGMATISM

Lecture I. — The Present Dilemma in Philosophy

Lecture II. — What Pragmatism Means

Lecture III. — Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered

Lecture IV. — The One and the Many

Lecture V. — Pragmatism and Common Sense

Lecture VI. — Pragmatism's Conception of Truth

Lecture VII. — Pragmatism and Humanism

Lecture VIII. — Pragmatism and Religion

CONTENTS

Lecture I

The Present Dilemma in Philosophy

Chesterton quoted. Everyone has a philosophy. Temperament is a factor in

all philosophizing. Rationalists and empiricists. The tender-minded

and the tough-minded. Most men wish both facts and religion. Empiricism

gives facts without religion. Rationalism gives religion without facts.

The layman's dilemma. The unreality in rationalistic systems. Leibnitz

on the damned, as an example. M. I. Swift on the optimism of idealists.

Pragmatism as a mediating system. An objection. Reply: philosophies have

characters like men, and are liable to as summary judgments. Spencer as

an example.

Lecture II

What Pragmatism Means

The squirrel. Pragmatism as a method. History of the method. Its

character and affinities. How it contrasts with rationalism and

intellectualism. A 'corridor theory.' Pragmatism as a theory of truth,

equivalent to 'humanism.' Earlier views of mathematical, logical, and

natural truth. More recent views. Schiller's and Dewey's 'instrumental'

view. The formation of new beliefs. Older truth always has to be kept

account of. Older truth arose similarly. The 'humanistic' doctrine.

Rationalistic criticisms of it. Pragmatism as mediator between

empiricism and religion. Barrenness of transcendental idealism. How far

the concept of the Absolute must be called true. The true is the good

in the way of belief. The clash of truths. Pragmatism unstiffens

discussion.

Lecture III

Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered

The problem of substance. The Eucharist. Berkeley's pragmatic treatment

of material substance. Locke's of personal identity. The problem of

materialism. Rationalistic treatment of it. Pragmatic treatment. 'God'

is no better than 'Matter' as a principle, unless he promise more.

Pragmatic comparison of the two principles. The problem of design.

'Design' per se is barren. The question is WHAT design. The problem of

'free-will.' Its relations to 'accountability.' Free-will a cosmological

theory. The pragmatic issue at stake in all these problems is what do

the alternatives PROMISE.

Lecture IV

The One and the Many

Total reflection. Philosophy seeks not only unity, but totality.

Rationalistic feeling about unity. Pragmatically considered, the world

is one in many ways. One time and space. One subject of discourse. Its

parts interact. Its oneness and manyness are co-ordinate. Question of

one origin. Generic oneness. One purpose. One story. One knower. Value

of pragmatic method. Absolute monism. Vivekananda. Various types of

union discussed. Conclusion: We must oppose monistic dogmatism and

follow empirical findings.

Lecture V

Pragmatism and Common Sense

Noetic pluralism. How our knowledge grows. Earlier ways of thinking

remain. Prehistoric ancestors DISCOVERED the common sense concepts. List

of them. They came gradually into use. Space and time. 'Things.' Kinds.

'Cause' and 'law.' Common sense one stage in mental evolution, due

to geniuses. The 'critical' stages: 1) scientific and 2) philosophic,

compared with common sense. Impossible to say which is the more 'true.'

Lecture VI

Pragmatism's Conception of Truth

The polemic situation. What does agreement with reality mean? It means

verifiability. Verifiability means ability to guide us prosperously

through experience. Completed verifications seldom needful. 'Eternal'

truths. Consistency, with language, with previous truths. Rationalist

objections. Truth is a good, like health, wealth, etc. It is expedient

thinking. The past. Truth grows. Rationalist objections. Reply to them.

Lecture VII

Pragmatism and Humanism

The notion of THE Truth. Schiller on 'Humanism.' Three sorts of

reality of which any new truth must take account. To 'take account' is

ambiguous. Absolutely independent reality is hard to find. The human

contribution is ubiquitous and builds out the given. Essence of

pragmatism's contrast with rationalism. Rationalism affirms a

transempirical world. Motives for this. Tough-mindedness rejects them. A

genuine alternative. Pragmatism mediates.

Lecture VIII

Pragmatism and Religion

Utility of the Absolute. Whitman's poem 'To You.' Two ways of taking

it. My friend's letter. Necessities versus possibilities. 'Possibility'

defined. Three views of the world's salvation. Pragmatism is

melioristic. We may create reality. Why should anything BE? Supposed

choice before creation. The healthy and the morbid reply. The 'tender'

and the 'tough' types of religion. Pragmatism mediates.

PRAGMATISM

Lecture I. — The Present Dilemma in Philosophy

In the preface to that admirable collection of essays of his called 'Heretics,' Mr. Chesterton writes these words: There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else affects them.

I think with Mr. Chesterton in this matter. I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds. You know the same of me. And yet I confess to a certain tremor at the audacity of the enterprise which I am about to begin. For the philosophy which is so important in each of us is not a technical matter; it is our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means. It is only partly got from books; it is our individual way of just seeing and feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos. I have no right to assume that many of you are students of the cosmos in the class-room sense, yet here I stand desirous of interesting you in a philosophy which to no small extent has to be technically treated. I wish to fill you with sympathy with a contemporaneous tendency in which I profoundly believe, and yet I have to talk like a professor to you who are not students. Whatever universe a professor believes in must at any rate be a universe that lends itself to lengthy discourse. A universe definable in two sentences is something for which the professorial intellect has no use. No faith in anything of that cheap kind! I have heard friends and colleagues try to popularize philosophy in this very hall, but they soon grew dry, and then technical, and the results were only partially encouraging. So my enterprise is a bold one. The founder of pragmatism himself recently gave a course of lectures at the Lowell Institute with that very word in its title-flashes of brilliant light relieved against Cimmerian darkness! None of us, I fancy, understood ALL that he said—yet here I stand, making a very similar venture.

I risk it because the very lectures I speak of DREW—they brought good audiences. There is, it must be confessed, a curious fascination in hearing deep things talked about, even tho neither we nor the disputants understand them. We get the problematic thrill, we feel the presence of the vastness. Let a controversy begin in a smoking-room anywhere, about free-will or God's omniscience, or good and evil, and see how everyone in the place pricks up his ears. Philosophy's results concern us all most vitally, and philosophy's queerest arguments tickle agreeably our sense of subtlety and ingenuity.

Believing in philosophy myself devoutly, and believing also that a kind of new dawn is breaking upon us philosophers, I feel impelled, per fas aut nefas, to try to impart to you some news of the situation.

Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits. It works in the minutest crannies and it opens out the widest vistas. It 'bakes no bread,' as has been said, but it can inspire our souls with courage; and repugnant as its manners, its doubting and challenging, its quibbling and dialectics, often are to common people, no one of us can get along without the far-flashing beams of light it sends over the world's perspectives. These illuminations at least, and the contrast-effects of darkness and mystery that accompany them, give to what it says an interest that is much more than professional.

The history of philosophy is to a great extent that of a certain clash of human temperaments. Undignified as such a treatment may seem to some of my colleagues, I shall have to take account of this clash and explain a good many of the divergencies of philosophers by it. Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries when philosophizing to sink the fact of his temperament. Temperament is no conventionally recognized reason, so he urges impersonal reasons only for his conclusions. Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or the other, making for a more sentimental or a more hard-hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trusts his temperament. Wanting a universe that suits it, he believes in any representation of the universe that does suit it. He feels men of opposite temper to be out of key with the world's character, and in his heart considers them incompetent and 'not in it,' in the philosophic business, even tho they may far excel him in dialectical ability.

Yet in the forum he can make no claim, on the bare ground of his temperament, to superior discernment or authority. There arises thus a certain insincerity in our philosophic discussions: the potentest of all our premises is never mentioned. I am sure it would contribute to clearness if in these lectures we should break this rule and mention it, and I accordingly feel free to do so.

Of course I am talking here of very positively marked men, men of radical idiosyncracy, who have set their stamp and likeness on philosophy and figure in its history. Plato, Locke, Hegel, Spencer, are such temperamental thinkers. Most of us have, of course, no very definite intellectual temperament, we are a mixture of opposite ingredients, each one present very moderately. We hardly know our own preferences in abstract matters; some of us are easily talked out of them, and end by following the fashion or taking up with the beliefs of the most impressive philosopher in our neighborhood, whoever he may be. But the one thing that has COUNTED so far in philosophy is that a man should see things, see them straight in his own peculiar way, and be dissatisfied with any opposite way of seeing them. There is no reason to suppose that this strong temperamental vision is from now onward to count no longer in the history of man's beliefs.

Now the particular difference of temperament that I have in mind in making these remarks is one that has counted in literature, art, government and manners as well as in philosophy. In manners we find formalists and free-and-easy persons. In government, authoritarians and anarchists. In literature, purists or academicals, and realists. In art, classics and romantics. You recognize these contrasts as familiar; well, in philosophy we have a very similar contrast expressed in the pair of terms 'rationalist' and 'empiricist,' 'empiricist' meaning your lover of facts in all their crude variety, 'rationalist' meaning your devotee to abstract and eternal principles. No one can live an hour without both facts and principles, so it is a difference rather of emphasis; yet it breeds antipathies of the most pungent character between those who lay the emphasis differently; and we shall find it extraordinarily convenient to express a certain contrast in men's ways of taking their universe, by talking of the 'empiricist' and of the 'rationalist' temper. These terms make the contrast simple and massive.

More simple and massive than are usually the men of whom the terms are predicated. For every sort of permutation and combination is possible in human nature; and if I now proceed to define more fully what I have in mind when I speak of rationalists and empiricists, by adding to each of those titles some secondary qualifying characteristics, I beg you to regard my conduct as to a certain extent arbitrary. I select types of combination that nature offers very frequently, but by no means uniformly, and I select them solely for their convenience in helping me to my ulterior purpose of characterizing pragmatism. Historically we find the terms 'intellectualism' and 'sensationalism' used as synonyms of 'rationalism' and 'empiricism.' Well, nature seems to combine most frequently with intellectualism an idealistic and optimistic tendency. Empiricists on the other hand are not uncommonly materialistic, and their optimism is apt to be decidedly conditional and tremulous. Rationalism is always monistic. It starts from wholes and universals, and makes much of the unity of