Book Cards
William James argues that philosophical positions are shaped by temperament and that pragmatism mediates between rationalist and empiricist habits of mind. The cards cover the lectures' origins, James's terms for the two temperaments, and the dilemmas he says each type faces.
1 / 146
Chapter 1 · Question
Where and when were the lectures in Pragmatism originally delivered?
WakeCards · wakecards.com · Big ideas. Quick review.
Chapter 1 · Answer
The lectures were delivered at the Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December 1906, and in January 1907 at Columbia University in New York. James states they are printed as delivered, without developments or notes.
WakeCards · wakecards.com · Big ideas. Quick review.
Arrow keys move between cards. Space or Enter flips.
Every card in the deck, in reading order. Click a chapter to expand. The reviewer above uses the same content.
The lectures were delivered at the Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December 1906, and in January 1907 at Columbia University in New York. James states they are printed as delivered, without developments or notes.
Chapter 1
James says he does not like the name but apparently it is too late to change it. He describes the pragmatic movement as having suddenly precipitated itself out of the air: many tendencies always existing in philosophy became collectively conscious of their combined mission across many countries and viewpoints, producing much unconcerted statement.
Chapter 1
He cites John Dewey's 'Studies in Logical Theory' as the foundation in America, plus Dewey's articles in the Philosophical Review, Mind, and the Journal of Philosophy. He recommends F. C. S. Schiller's 'Studies in Humanism' as probably the best starting point, and mentions Milhaud, Le Roy, Blondel, de Sailly, and a forthcoming book by Papini.
Chapter 1
James claims that everyone has a philosophy, and that the most interesting and important thing about a person is the way that philosophy determines the perspective on their several worlds. He calls this philosophy a more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means, only partly gotten from books, an individual way of seeing and feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos.
Chapter 2
The author argues that the history of philosophy is largely a clash of human temperaments. A philosopher tries to sink the fact of his temperament and urges impersonal reasons, yet temperament gives him a stronger bias than any objective premise, loading the evidence toward a sentimental or hard-hearted view. He trusts the temperament and considers opposite men incompetent, though he can make no claim to authority on that bare ground.
Chapter 2
James defines the empiricist as the lover of facts in all their crude variety, and the rationalist as the devotee of abstract and eternal principles. No one can live an hour without both facts and principles, so the difference is one of emphasis, yet it breeds pungent antipathies. He calls these terms simple and massive, though more so than the actual men they describe.
Chapter 2
James says rationalism usually combines with idealism and optimism, is always monistic, starts from wholes and universals, and tends toward dogmatic affirmation and belief in free-will. Empiricism is often materialistic with conditional, tremulous optimism, starts from parts and makes the whole a collection, is pluralistic, may be fatalistic, and is more sceptical and open to discussion. He calls these selections somewhat arbitrary.
Chapter 2
James says each type has a low opinion of the other: the tough regard the tender as sentimentalists and soft-heads, while the tender feel the tough to be unrefined, callous, or brutal. Each believes the other inferior, but disdain is mingled with amusement in one case and a dash of fear in the other. He compares the reaction to Bostonian tourists mingling with a Cripple Creek population.
Chapter 3
The tender-minded are rationalistic (going by principles), intellectualistic, idealistic, optimistic, religious, free-willist, monistic, and dogmatical. The tough-minded are empiricist (going by facts), sensationalistic, materialistic, pessimistic, irreligious, fatalistic, pluralistic, and sceptical. James asks readers to postpone judging whether each mixture is inwardly coherent, since he says both types exist.
Chapter 3
Such a person wants facts and science but also wants religion. James says the available options fail: an empirical philosophy that is not religious enough, and a religious philosophy that is not empirical enough. Where facts are most considered, the tough-minded program runs in full blast, producing the 'conflict between science and religion,' with figures like Haeckel and Spencer bowing religion politely out the front door.
Chapter 3
One is the more radical, aggressive transcendental idealism of the Anglo-Hegelian school (Green, the Cairds, Bosanquet, Royce), which is pantheistic and has blunted traditional theism in protestantism. The other, descended from scholastic theism and once called the Scottish school, fights a slow retreat; James calls it eclectic, a thing of compromises seeking a modus vivendi, accepting Darwinism and cerebral physiology but doing nothing active with them, and lacking prestige.
Chapter 3
James argues empiricism brings inhumanism and irreligion, while rationalistic philosophy may call itself religious but keeps out of all definite touch with concrete facts, joys, and sorrows. What is wanted is a system combining scientific loyalty to facts with the old confidence in human values and spontaneity, religious or romantic.
Chapter 4
The author argues rationalistic philosophy is less an account of the actual world than a clear addition built upon it — a classic sanctuary where the rationalist fancy takes refuge from the confused, gothic character of mere facts. It is no explanation of the concrete universe but a substitute, a remedy, a way of escape, characterized by refinement alien to concrete existence.
Chapter 4
James recalls a graduate of a Western college who assumed that entering a philosophic classroom meant opening relations with a universe entirely distinct from the street's. The street world is multitudinous, tangled, muddy, painful and perplexed; the professor's world is simple, clean and noble, its architecture classic, a marble temple shining on a hill.
Chapter 4
James calls Leibnitz a rationalist with more interest in facts than most, yet says his Theodicee is superficiality incarnate. Leibnitz assumes the damned infinitely outnumber the saved, then argues evils are almost nothing compared with goods, since countless inhabited suns and immense spaces may hold happiness, and a few instances of evil suffice.
Chapter 4
James offers pragmatism as a philosophy satisfying both kinds of demand: it can remain religious like the rationalisms while, like the empiricisms, preserving the richest intimacy with facts. He hopes his audience will think as favorably of it as he does, but he postpones introducing pragmatism properly until the next lecture, preferring to return to earlier points.
Chapter 6
James grants that professional philosophers may find his disjunction barbaric and his picture a monstrously over-simplified, brutal caricature, and he feels the full force of the indictment. Yet he argues that, like all abstractions, it has its use: however coarse and sketchy, it is literally true that temperaments with their cravings and refusals determine men in their philosophies, and always will.
Chapter 6
James asks whether Cologne cathedral was built without an architect's plan, and whether refinement is an abomination or concrete rudeness the only truth. He distinguishes outlines conceived in the cube, which are fat, from skinny outlines invented flat on paper with ruler and compass. An outline is meagre but need not suggest a meagre thing; it is the essential meagreness suggested by usual rationalistic philosophies that moves empiricists to reject them.
Chapter 6
James asks what is practically meant by 'going round.' If it means passing north, east, south, west of the squirrel, the man does go round him; if it means being successively in front, right, behind, left, he does not, since the squirrel keeps its belly toward him. Making the distinction ends the dispute: both are right and both wrong depending on the practical sense. James calls this a simple example of the pragmatic method.
Chapter 7
James says the pragmatic method is primarily a way of settling metaphysical disputes that might otherwise be interminable, such as whether the world is one or many, fated or free, material or spiritual. It interprets each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences: what difference would it practically make if this notion rather than that were true? If no practical difference can be traced, the alternatives mean practically the same thing and the dispute is idle.
Chapter 7
James credits Charles Peirce, in 'How to Make Our Ideas Clear' (1878), with the principle: beliefs are really rules for action, so to develop a thought's meaning we need only determine what conduct it is fitted to produce. To attain perfect clearness, consider what conceivable practical effects an object may involve—what sensations to expect and what reactions to prepare. James says it lay unnoticed for twenty years until he brought it forward in 1898 and applied it to religion.
Chapter 7
James proposes tracing a concrete consequence: ask what particular experimental or practical fact would be made different if one view rather than the other were correct. If no difference of fact could ensue, the dispute is unreal. He cites Ostwald's tautomerous-chemistry quarrel as an example, and says there can be no difference in abstract truth that does not express itself in concrete fact and conduct.
Chapter 8
James insists pragmatism stands for no special results; it is a method only, with no dogmas and no doctrines save its method. It is an attitude of orientation: looking away from first things, principles, categories and supposed necessities, and toward last things, fruits, consequences and facts. Its general triumph would change philosophy's temperament, freezing out ultra-rationalistic teachers and bringing science and metaphysics hand in hand.
Chapter 8
Papini says pragmatism lies in the midst of our theories like a corridor in a hotel, with innumerable rooms opening off it: an atheist writing, someone praying for faith, a chemist investigating, idealistic metaphysics being excogitated, and the impossibility of metaphysics being shown. All own the corridor and must pass through it to get into or out of their rooms. James uses this to show pragmatism is a method, not a set of results.
Chapter 8
James says metaphysics has followed a primitive quest for magic words: 'God,' 'Matter,' 'Reason,' 'the Absolute,' 'Energy' are solving names in which one can rest, as if possessing the universe's principle. The pragmatist cannot treat any word as closing the quest; he must bring out its practical cash-value and set it at work in experience. Theories thus become instruments, not answers to enigmas, and pragmatism unstiffens them, making them programs for more work.
Chapter 8
James says early discoverers of mathematical and natural laws believed they had deciphered the eternal thoughts of the Almighty, who thought in conic sections, ratios, and Kepler's laws. As sciences developed, the notion gained ground that most or all laws are only approximations, man-made conceptual shorthand, and no theory is absolutely a transcript of reality.
Chapter 9
James reports that Schiller and Dewey hold truth means the same in ideas as in science: ideas, themselves parts of our experience, become true insofar as they help us get into satisfactory relation with other parts of experience, summarizing them and using conceptual short-cuts. Any idea that carries us prosperously and links things satisfactorily is true instrumentally, true in so far forth.
Chapter 9
They generalize the familiar process by which an individual settles into new opinions. Old opinions meet a straining new experience—contradiction, internal conflict, incompatible facts, or unsatisfied desires—causing inward trouble. The person saves as much of the old stock as possible, being conservative in belief, and adopts the new idea that grafts onto the ancient stock with minimum disturbance, mediating between stock and experience.
Chapter 9
James urges that the influence of older truths is absolutely controlling; loyalty to them is the first principle, and in most cases the only principle. New truth acts as a go-between marrying old opinion to new fact with minimum jolt and maximum continuity. Usually novel phenomena that would force serious rearrangement are simply ignored, or those who report them are abused.
Chapter 9
James argues a new opinion counts as true in proportion as it gratifies the individual's desire to assimilate the novel in experience to beliefs already in stock. It must both lean on old truth and grasp new fact, and its success is a matter of the individual's appreciation. The truest idea performs most felicitously its function of satisfying this double urgency.
Chapter 10
Radium seemed to violate conservation of energy by paying heat away indefinitely. Ramsay's view that radiations were pre-existent potential energy inside atoms, with helium as their outcome, saved the principle. James says this view is generally held true because it extends old ideas of energy while causing a minimum of alteration in their nature.
Chapter 10
James says Dewey and Schiller apply the observation to the most ancient parts of truth: they too were once plastic, were called true for human reasons, and mediated between still earlier truths and then-novel observations. Purely objective truth, in whose establishment human satisfaction played no role, is nowhere to be found; 'to be true' means only to perform this marriage-function.
Chapter 10
James argues pragmatism is uncomfortable away from facts, while rationalism is comfortable only in the presence of abstractions. The rationalist demands objective truth that is non-utilitarian, remote, and an absolute correspondence with reality; the pragmatist observes truth at work in particular cases and makes it a class-name for working-values in experience. James says rationalists accuse pragmatists of denying truth.
Chapter 10
The author argues pragmatism is devoted to facts yet has no materialistic bias and no a priori prejudice against theology. If theological ideas prove to have value for concrete life, they will be true for pragmatism in the sense of being good for so much; how much more they are true depends on their relations to other truths that must also be acknowledged.
Chapter 11
Applying the pragmatic method, James says believers mean that since finite evil is already 'overruled' in the Absolute, they may treat the temporal as potentially eternal, trust its outcome, and drop the worry of finite responsibility. In short, they claim a right to take a moral holiday, letting the world wag while its issues rest in better hands.
Chapter 11
The author argues truth is one species of good, not a category distinct from and co-ordinate with good. The true is the name of whatever proves itself good in the way of belief, and good for definite, assignable reasons. He notes that if no good for life came from true ideas, the notion that truth is divine and its pursuit a duty could never have arisen.
Chapter 11
James first calls the Absolute majestic and comforting, then accuses it of remoteness and sterility. But insofar as it affords comfort, it is not sterile; it performs a concrete function. As a good pragmatist, he says he ought to call it true 'in so far forth,' and does so—while denying it gives any detailed consequences for life.
Chapter 11
James argues that the greatest enemy of any particular truth is the rest of our truths. Beliefs have a 'desperate instinct of self-preservation' and seek to extinguish whatever contradicts them. Thus, a belief that is beneficial must still be tested against all other beliefs, and if it clashes with vital benefits yielded by other beliefs, it may be rejected.
Chapter 12
James says that although belief in the Absolute gives him a 'moral holiday,' it clashes with other truths he values. It is associated with a logic he opposes and entangles him in unacceptable metaphysical paradoxes. Since he already has enough trouble without intellectual inconsistencies, he personally gives up the Absolute and takes his moral holidays without it, or justifies them by another principle.
Chapter 12
James argues that pragmatism's only test of probable truth is what works best in leading us, what fits every part of life best and combines with the collectivity of experience's demands. If theological ideas, such as the notion of God, prove pragmatically successful in this way, pragmatism cannot deny God's existence, for it sees no other kind of truth than agreement with concrete reality.
Chapter 12
James presents the nominalist view that substance is a spurious idea arising from turning names into things. We know only groups of attributes (e.g., whiteness, friability) and their cohesion; the supposed substance behind them is unknowable and unnecessary. Nominalists say attributes cohere with each other, and the notion of a substance supporting them must be abandoned; the bare cohesion is all that 'substance' signifies.
Chapter 12
James says the Eucharist is the only pragmatic application of the substance-idea he knows. Since the wafer's accidents do not change yet it becomes Christ's body, the change must be in substance alone: bread-substance withdrawn, divine substance substituted. The practical consequence is that communicants feed upon divinity. James notes this only matters to those who already believe in the real presence on independent grounds.
Chapter 13
James argues Berkeley's critique was absolutely pragmatistic, not a denial of the external world. Berkeley attacked the scholastic notion of a material substance behind the world, needed to support it. Abolishing it and trusting God to send the sensible world directly confirms the world rather than undermining it. Matter's cash-value is our sensations of colour, figure, hardness; it is a true name for just so much sensation.
Chapter 13
Locke reduces personal identity to consciousness: at one moment we remember other moments and feel them as one personal history. He asks whether, if God took away consciousness or annexed it to different souls, we would be better or worse off. Consciousness of Nestor's actions would make one the same person as Nestor. All right and justice of reward and punishment is founded on this personal identity.
Chapter 13
James says philosophical materialism is not necessarily tied to belief in matter as a metaphysical principle. One may deny matter, as Berkeley did, or be a phenomenalist like Huxley, and still be a materialist in the wider sense: explaining higher phenomena by lower ones and leaving the world's destinies to blind physical laws. This naturalism opposes spiritualism or theism, which holds that mind runs and operates things, not merely records them.
Chapter 13
James argues that if the world's contents were once for all irrevocably given with no future, the theist and materialist explanations would have identical consequences. The pragmatist must then say the two theories mean exactly the same thing and the dispute is purely verbal, since concepts are things to come back into experience with and no differences could be looked for.
Chapter 14
James reports that Spencer, in pages at the end of the first volume of his Psychology, shows that a matter infinitely subtile and moving inconceivably quickly has no trace of grossness left. Spencer says the conception of spirit as mortals have framed it is itself too gross for nature's tenuity, and both terms are but symbols pointing to one unknowable reality in which their oppositions cease.
Chapter 14
James says that to anyone who has looked on the face of a dead child or parent, the mere fact that matter could have taken for a time that precious form ought to make matter sacred ever after. It makes no difference whether the principle of life is material or immaterial; matter co-operates and lends itself to all life's purposes, and that beloved incarnation was among matter's possibilities.
Chapter 14
James argues that in every genuine metaphysical debate some practical issue, however conjectural and remote, is involved. In the world we live in, which has a future and is yet uncompleted, the alternative of materialism or theism is intensely practical, because future detail of experience or conduct can be deduced from the hypothesis. Only in a completed world would the debate be idle.
Chapter 14
James argues that as far as past facts go there is no difference: the facts are already "in, bagged, captured," and whatever good is in them is gained whether atoms or God caused them. He notes some materialists use this to argue matter, functionally considered, is just as divine as God. But James insists philosophy is also prospective, asking what the world promises.
Chapter 15
James says the true objection is negative, not positive: it would be farcical to complain of matter's "grossness," since grossness is what grossness does. He objects instead to what materialism is not—it is no permanent warrant for ideal interests and no fulfiller of our remotest hopes. Its disconsolateness lies in its ulterior practical results, not its coarseness.
Chapter 15
James argues that the notion of God, however inferior in clarity to mathematical notions of mechanical philosophy, guarantees an ideal order that shall be permanently preserved. A world with a God may burn up or freeze, but God is thought still mindful of old ideals and sure to bring them elsewhere to fruition, so tragedy is only provisional and shipwreck not absolutely final. This meets a deep need for an eternal moral order.
Chapter 15
James says their real meanings lie in emotional and practical appeals, in attitudes of hope and expectation, not in hair-splitting abstractions about matter's essence or God's metaphysical attributes. Materialism means simply the denial that the moral order is eternal and the cutting off of ultimate hopes; spiritualism means affirming an eternal moral order and letting loose of hope. He calls this a genuine issue.
Chapter 15
James says spiritualistic faith in all its forms deals with a world of promise, while materialism's sun sets in a sea of disappointment. He admits the exact future facts belief in God insures must be ciphered out by science, but argues we can enjoy our God in advance of that labor, and that evidence for God lies primarily in inner personal experiences.
Chapter 16
James says the argument once counted almost unanimously but now counts little since Darwin. Darwin showed chance-happenings can bring forth fit results given time, stressed nature's waste in producing destroyed results, and noted adaptations that, if designed, would argue an evil rather than good designer—to the grub under bark, the woodpecker's fitness argues a diabolical designer.
Chapter 16
James says theologians stretch their minds to embrace Darwinian facts while still showing divine purpose. It was once purpose against mechanism, either/or—like saying shoes designed for feet can't come from machinery. But both hold: machinery itself is designed. God's aim, like a football team's, is to reach the goal through a fixed machinery of conditions, not merely to place the ball.
Chapter 16
James argues that whatever nature produces, the means must have been adequate and fitted to that production, so the argument from fitness to design always applies whatever the product's character. The Mont-Pelee eruption required all previous history to produce that exact configuration. So we can always say any conceivable world may have been designed to produce it; the real question is what the world is.
Chapter 16
James argues that 'design' as an abstract word is a blank cartridge carrying no consequences. Only if faith concretizes it into something theistic does it become a term of promise, giving a more confiding outlook on the future. This vague confidence that a seeing force runs things is, he says, the sole pragmatic meaning presently discernible in 'design' and 'designer.'
Chapter 17
James describes a queer antinomy: free-willists say if acts were predetermined we merely transmit the past's push, so we are agents not principals and cannot be praised or blamed. Determinists rejoin that if a free act is sheer novelty coming ex nihilo, the previous self cannot be responsible, and character tumbles into disconnected beads. James calls this argument pitiful.
Chapter 17
James argues free-will pragmatically means novelties in the world: the right to expect the future may not identically repeat the past, even in its deepest elements. He grants the general uniformity of nature is presupposed by lesser laws, but says nature may be only approximately uniform. Thus free-will is a melioristic doctrine holding up improvement as at least possible.
Chapter 17
James argues free-will has no meaning unless it is a doctrine of relief, taking its place with other religious doctrines as terms of promise. Interest in such metaphysics arises because our empirical future feels unsafe and needs a higher guarantee. In a world obviously perfect from the start, freedom could only mean freedom to be worse, and no one would desire it.
Chapter 17
James argues their sole meaning is a better promise as to this world's outcome — what he calls meliorism. Whether true or false, their significance lies in the practical difference they make for life, not in abstract definition. Pragmatism therefore plunges forward into experience with such concepts rather than ending in admiring contemplation.
Chapter 18
James compares sensible facts to water and abstract ideas to air above it. Both are real and interact only at their boundary; the locus of lived experience is the water. Abstract ideas are indispensable for life but irrespirable by themselves, active only in their re-directing function — like light reflected back into the water, re-determining and re-energizing the swimmer's course.
Chapter 18
James calls it central because it is so pregnant: knowing whether a man is a decided monist or pluralist tells you more about his other opinions than any other label ending in -ist. He says to believe in the one or the many is the classification with the maximum number of consequences. He admits few in his audience have lost sleep over it.
Chapter 18
James argues our intellect aims at neither variety nor unity taken singly but totality. Acquaintance with reality's diversities is as important as understanding their connexion; the human passion of curiosity runs on all fours with the systematizing passion. He notes that unity has always been considered more illustrious, and that abstract monism is nearly philosophic common sense among educated circles.
Chapter 18
The world is at least one subject of discourse: our term 'world' or 'universe' intends to cover every part, so nothing is left out. But James notes this carries no farther monistic specifications—a chaos, once named, has as much unity of discourse as a cosmos. It remains to be seen whether things are one in any more valuable sense.
Chapter 19
James argues the oneness and manyness are absolutely co-ordinate: neither is primordial, more essential, or more excellent than the other. Any connexion fails if you choose non-conductors, making the world a pure many from that point of view. He notes that if intellect cared as much for disjunctive relations, philosophy would have celebrated the world's disunion just as successfully.
Chapter 19
James argues that appearances conflict with a single final purpose: results we know were not purposed in advance in all their details, and our purposes war with each other, compromising into unforeseen outcomes. He says whoever claims absolute teleological unity dogmatizes at his own risk, and a God relishing such superfluities of horror is no God for human beings to appeal to.
Chapter 20
James says things tell a story: parts hang together to work out a climax, and retrospectively events fall into dramatic form with a start, middle, and finish. But the world is full of partial stories running parallel, interlacing and interfering, which we cannot unify completely. He argues absolute aesthetic union is a barely abstract ideal, and the world appears more epic than dramatic.
Chapter 20
James concludes that there is certainly more union in systems, kinds, purposes, and dramas than openly appears, and that there may be one sovereign purpose, system, kind, and story—a legitimate hypothesis. But he says it is rash to affirm this dogmatically without better evidence than we possess at present, leaving several questions unsettled.
Chapter 20
James identifies the notion of THE ONE KNOWER as the great monistic instrument: the many exist only as objects for his thought, and as he knows them they form one system and tell one tale. James calls this notion of an all-enveloping noetic unity the sublimest achievement of intellectualist philosophy, but treats it only as an hypothesis, logically on a par with pluralism.
Chapter 21
Rationalism insists on a unity like Royce's 'one luminously transparent conscious moment.' Empiricism is satisfied with the humanly familiar type: everything gets known by SOME knower along with something else, but knowers may be irreducibly many, and the greatest knower may not know everything or know it at one stroke—he may forget. Either way the world remains a universe noetically, unified or strung along and overlapped.
Chapter 21
James says the notion of one instantaneous or eternal Knower has practically driven out the older conception of Substance, which alone had being in and from itself and supported all particulars. Substance succumbed to pragmatic criticisms of the English school and now appears only as another name for the fact that phenomena come actually grouped in coherent forms—forms that are as much parts of the tissue of experience as the terms they connect.
Chapter 21
The world is one just so far as we experience it concatenated, by as many definite conjunctions as appear—but also NOT one by just as many disjunctions as we find. It is neither a universe pure and simple nor a multiverse pure and simple. Pragmatism asks what the oneness is known-as and what practical difference it makes, refusing to claim absolute oneness in advance.
Chapter 21
James argues that its monism is radical because separation is not merely overcome by the One but denied to exist: there is no many, and we are not parts of the One since It has no parts. Since we undeniably are, each of us must be the One, indivisibly and totally. He calls this, emotionally considered, a religion of high pragmatic value that imparts a perfect security.
Chapter 22
James says he cannot help suspecting that the palpable weak places in the intellectual reasonings idealists use are protected from their own criticism by a mystical feeling that, logic or no logic, absolute Oneness must somehow at any cost be true. He notes we all have at least the germ of mysticism, which wakes on hearing monistic utterances and assigns intellectual considerations a secondary place.
Chapter 22
James states that pragmatism, with her criterion of the practical differences theories make, must equally abjure absolute monism and absolute pluralism. The world is one just so far as its parts hang together by any definite connexion, and many just so far as any definite connexion fails to obtain. It is growing more unified by the systems of connexion human energy keeps framing.
Chapter 22
The lowest grade is a world of mere WITHNESS, whose parts are only strung together by the conjunction 'and.' James says such a universe is even now the collection of our several inner lives: the spaces and times of imagination and day-dreams are incoherent inter se and wholly out of definite relation with anyone else's mind, coexisting in no order and no receptacle, the nearest approach to an absolute many.
Chapter 22
James suggests it may be lawful to conjecture that the various unions now realized in the universe were successively evolved, as human systems evolve from human needs. If so, total oneness would appear at the end of things rather than at their origin. The 'Absolute' would be replaced by the 'Ultimate': same content, the maximally unified content of fact, but with time-relations positively reversed.
Chapter 23
James argues absolute unity brooks no degrees. The minutest wiggle of independence of any part from the control of the totality would ruin it, just as you could not claim absolute purity for a glass of water containing a single cholera-germ. The independence of a part, however infinitesimal, would be as fatal to the Absolute as that germ.
Chapter 23
Pluralism needs no dogmatic rigor. Provided you grant some separation among things, some tremor of independence, some free play of parts, some real novelty or chance however minute, it is satisfied and will allow any amount of real union. How much union there may be is a question pluralism thinks can only be decided empirically.
Chapter 23
James argues pragmatism must range itself on the pluralistic side until the balance of union and disunion among things is empirically ascertained. Total union may someday prove the most acceptable hypothesis, but the opposite hypothesis, of a world imperfectly unified and perhaps always so, must be sincerely entertained. Since absolute monism forbids even considering it, branding it irrational, pragmatism turns its back on monism.
Chapter 23
The author argues new truths are resultants of new experiences and old truths combined and mutually modifying one another. Novelty soaks in and stains the ancient mass but is also tinged by what absorbs it; the past apperceives and co-operates. So the new fact is rarely added raw—more usually it is embedded cooked, or stewed down in the sauce of the old.
Chapter 24
The author's thesis is that our fundamental ways of thinking about things are discoveries of exceedingly remote ancestors, preserved throughout all subsequent experience. They form one great stage of equilibrium in the mind's development—the stage of common sense. Other stages have grafted themselves upon it but never succeeded in displacing it.
Chapter 24
In practical talk, common sense means good judgment, freedom from eccentricity, gumption. In philosophy it means something entirely different: the use of certain intellectual forms or categories of thought. James notes that were we lobsters or bees, our organization might have led us to use quite different modes of apprehending experience, possibly equally serviceable.
Chapter 24
Concepts are denkmittel—means by which we handle facts by thinking them. Experience doesn't come ticketed and labeled; we frame a system of concepts and use it as a tally to keep tab on impressions, referring each to a place in the system to 'understand' it. He illustrates with Descartes redefining Euclid's figures by co-ordinates, a vastly more potent way of handling curves.
Chapter 24
The author argues these categories originated historically and only gradually spread. In primitive times men believed whatever they thought with liveliness, mixing dreams with realities inextricably. Experiences we now call 'thoughts' were once treated as realities; the distinction between thought and things developed slowly, and no category among those enumerated is exempt from this gradual historical origin.
Chapter 25
The author argues cosmic space and cosmic time are constructions as patently artificial as any science can show, not the intuitions Kant claimed them to be. Natural men live in loose, unordered time-and-space experiences with vague margins; children confuse yesterday with the day before. On a map one sees relations clearly, but in reality one fails to feel the symbolized facts. Most of humanity never uses these abstract notions.
Chapter 25
The author argues kinds and sameness of kind are colossally useful DENKMITTEL for finding our way among the many. Without them, experiences might all be singulars occurring only once, and logic would have no application, since kind and sameness of kind are logic's only instruments. Once we know whatever is of a kind is also of that kind's kind, we travel the universe as if with seven-league boots.
Chapter 25
James identifies three well-characterized stages or types of thought: common sense, science, and philosophic criticism. Each stage's notions have their own kind of merit, and James argues it is impossible to say any stage in sight is absolutely more true than another. Common sense is the more consolidated stage because it came first and made language its ally.
Chapter 26
James argues the scientific tendency in critical thought opened an unexpected range of practical utilities: Galileo gave accurate clocks and artillery practice, chemists new medicines and dyes, Ampere and Faraday the subway and Marconi telegrams. The philosophic stage, by contrast, he calls utterly sterile for shedding light on nature's details, yielding intellectual rather than practical satisfactions, with a large minus-side.
Chapter 26
James reports that scientific logicians say these entities, however definitely conceived, should not be held literally real. It is as if they existed; in reality they are like co-ordinates or logarithms, artificial short-cuts for moving from one part of experience's flux to another. We can cipher fruitfully with them and they serve us wonderfully, but we must not be their dupes.
Chapter 26
James says we are witnessing a curious reversion to the common-sense way of looking at physical nature, in the philosophy of science favored by Mach, Ostwald and Duhem. According to these teachers no hypothesis is truer than another as a literal copy of reality; all are ways of talking compared solely by their use. The only literally true thing is reality, which for them is sensible reality, the flux of sensations and emotions.
Chapter 26
The author argues that common sense's categories, though venerable and built into language, may be only a collection of extraordinarily successful hypotheses—historically discovered or invented by single men, then communicated and used by everybody—by which forefathers unified and straightened the discontinuity of immediate experience and reached a satisfactory practical equilibrium with nature.
Chapter 27
First, a suspicion about common sense: its categories may be only extraordinarily successful hypotheses that practical life has validated. Second, the existence of various types of thinking—each splendid for certain purposes yet conflicting, none able to claim absolute veracity—should awaken a presumption favoring the pragmatistic view that all our theories are instrumental, mental modes of adaptation to reality rather than revelations or answers to a divine world-enigma.
Chapter 27
Both accept that truth means ideas' agreement with reality; they quarrel over what 'agreement' and 'reality' mean. The author argues pragmatists are more analytic and painstaking, intellectualists more offhand and irreflective. Intellectualists assume truth is an inert static relation—once you have a true idea, you're in possession and epistemologically in stable equilibrium. Pragmatism instead asks what concrete difference a true belief makes in actual life, its cash-value in experiential terms.
Chapter 27
The popular notion is that a true idea must copy its reality, following the analogy of usual experience—thinking of the clock's dial does yield a copy. But ideas of the clock's 'works,' its 'time-keeping function,' or its spring's 'elasticity' hardly copy anything, yet still pass as true. So where ideas cannot copy their object, James asks what agreement with that object could mean—a problem inviting pragmatist discussion.
Chapter 27
The author argues that true ideas are those we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify, while false ideas are those we cannot. This practical difference is what the meaning of truth consists in, since it is all that truth is known-as. Truth is not a stagnant property inherent in an idea; it happens to an idea and is made true by events.
Chapter 28
The author argues verification signifies practical consequences: an idea leads us through acts and other ideas into other parts of experience, with the feeling that the original idea remains in agreement. The connexions and transitions come as progressive, harmonious and satisfactory. This function of agreeable leading is what he means by an idea's verification, and he admits the account sounds vague and trivial at first.
Chapter 28
The author argues that possessing true thoughts means possessing invaluable instruments of action. If lost and starved, finding what looks like a cow-path, it matters that you think a human habitation lies at its end, for following it saves you. The true thought is useful because its object, the house, is useful; the practical value of true ideas derives primarily from the practical importance of their objects.
Chapter 28
The author argues such truths are not abortive, since indirect as well as direct verifications pass muster and they form the overwhelmingly large number of truths we live by. We assume the clock and use it, and verification means leading to no frustration or contradiction. Verifiability of wheels and weights is as good as verification; for one completed truth-process, a million function in nascency.
Chapter 28
The author argues truth mostly lives on a credit system: beliefs pass like bank-notes so long as nothing challenges them. We accept each other's verifications and trade on each other's truth. But this points to direct face-to-face verifications somewhere, without which the fabric of truth collapses like a financial system with no cash basis. Beliefs concretely verified by somebody are the posts of the whole superstructure.
Chapter 29
The author argues that, besides economy of time, all things exist in kinds and not singly. Once we have directly verified ideas about one specimen of a kind, we consider ourselves free to apply them to other specimens without verification. A mind that discerns the kind and acts by its law immediately will be a true mind in ninety-nine out of a hundred emergencies, proved by conduct fitting everything it meets.
Chapter 29
The author argues that relations among purely mental ideas form another sphere where beliefs are absolute or unconditional, bearing the name of definitions or principles. Examples: 1 and 1 make 2; white differs less from gray than from black; when a cause begins to act the effect commences. These hold of all possible ones, whites, grays, and causes. No sense-verification is needed, and once true, always true of those same mental objects.
Chapter 29
The author argues that to agree in the widest sense with a reality can only mean to be guided either straight up to it or into its surroundings, or put into working touch with it so as to handle it or something connected with it better than if we disagreed. Copying is one important way of agreeing but far from essential; the essential thing is the process of being guided.
Chapter 29
The overwhelming majority of true ideas admit of no direct face-to-face verification, such as past history like Cain and Abel. The stream of time can be remounted only verbally, or verified indirectly by the present prolongations or effects of what the past harbored. If our ideas agree with these verbalities and effects, we can know they are true—as true as past time itself was.
Chapter 30
James argues a theory must mediate between all previous truths and certain new experiences. It must derange common sense and previous belief as little as possible, and it must lead to some sensible terminus that can be verified exactly. To 'work' means both these things, and the squeeze is so tight there is little loose play for any hypothesis.
Chapter 30
Sometimes alternative theoretic formulas are equally compatible with all the truths we know, and then we choose for subjective reasons—the kind of theory we are already partial to, following 'elegance' or 'economy.' James cites Clerk Maxwell's remark that it would be 'poor scientific taste' to choose the more complicated of two equally well-evidenced conceptions. But consistency with previous truth and novel fact remains the most imperious claimant.
Chapter 30
James argues the plausibility of the rationalist tirade comes from our world abounding in things of similar kinds, where one verification serves for others and we are led to their associates. Truth ante rem pragmatically means that innumerable ideas work better by indirect or possible than by direct verification—so it means only verifiability. Otherwise it is the stock rationalist trick of treating the name of a concrete reality as a prior entity explaining it.
Chapter 30
The author argues truth becomes a habit of certain ideas and beliefs during intervals of rest from their verifying activities. Like health or strength, truth is not always actively exercised; those activities are the root of the matter and the condition of any habit existing in the intervals.
Chapter 31
The author argues rationalism allows experience and our psychological ascertainments of truth to be mutable, but insists reality itself and truth itself are immutable—complete and ready-made from eternity, with truth an inert, static, supervenient reflexion belonging to the epistemological dimension. Pragmatism, by contrast, faces forward to the future and treats truth as made.
Chapter 31
The author argues that rationalists insist truth's claim has nothing to do with practical interests or personal reasons, existing in a purely logical dimension that antedates all motivation. James calls this an idea abstracted from concrete experience and then used to oppose and negate what it was abstracted from, calling it an exquisite example of that fallacy.
Chapter 32
The author argues our obligation to acknowledge truth is tremendously conditioned, not unconditional. Concrete truths need recognition only when recognition is expedient; a truth must be preferred to falsehood when both relate to the situation, but when neither does, truth is as little a duty as falsehood. He illustrates with a true but irrelevant answer about his address.
Chapter 32
The author describes the sentimentalist fallacy as shedding tears over abstract justice, generosity, and beauty while failing to recognize these qualities when met in the street, because circumstances there make them vulgar. He parallels it with a rationalist who admired beauty in the abstract but had no enthusiasm for architecture, painting, or flowers.
Chapter 32
The author argues critics slander pragmatists by claiming they call whatever is pleasant true. He compares this to Berkeley, who explained what people meant by matter and was thought to deny its existence. James says the pragmatist feels the immense pressure of objective control from funded truths and the world of sense.
Chapter 32
James calls THE Truth an "idol of the tribe" and a "perfect idol of the rationalistic mind"—the idea of one determinate, complete answer to a fixed world enigma. He argues the question "what is THE truth?" is no real question, being irrelative to all conditions, and that THE truth is merely an abstraction from truths in the plural, like "THE Latin Language" or "THE Law."
Chapter 33
James says common-law judges and schoolmasters talk of law and Latin as if they were pre-existent entities requiring obedience, but reflection shows both are results. Distinctions of lawful/unlawful and correct/incorrect grow up incidentally among men's detailed experiences. Truth grafts itself on previous truth, as idiom on idiom and law on law; given prior law and a novel case, a judge twists them into fresh law.
Chapter 33
First, the flux of our sensations, forced upon us with no control, neither true nor false in themselves. Second, the relations between sensations or their mental copies: mutable accidental ones like date and place, and fixed essential ones like likeness and unlikeness, which are "eternal." Third, the previous truths of which every new inquiry takes account—a much less obdurately resisting factor that often ends by giving way.
Chapter 33
Schiller proposes "Humanism" for the doctrine that to an unascertainable extent our truths are man-made products too, with human motives and satisfactions in all our formulas. He calls the world plastic, to be learned by trying. James defends this but notes Schiller admits resisting factors in every truth-making experience: reality acts as something found, not manufactured, and new truths must "agree" with it.
Chapter 33
James notes that humans carve star groups into constellations and name them variously (Charles's Wain, Great Bear, Dipper). None of the names is false; all fit the sensible reality while building it out. Which name counts as more true depends on human use, so the additions agree with reality yet are humanly made.
Chapter 35
James uses 27 to show that the same reality supports different true descriptions depending on human purpose. Found in a drawer where 28 dollars were left, it is 28 minus 1; as the length of a shelf for a 26-inch cupboard, it is 26 plus 1. Both are true, and usefulness decides which is treated as more true.
Chapter 35
James argues we break the flux of sensible reality into things at our will, creating subjects of true and false propositions alike. We also create predicates: many express only relations of things to us, such as Caesar being a menace to Rome's freedom or an American schoolroom pest. Such human additions are as true as the earlier ones.
Chapter 35
James states the essential contrast: for rationalism reality is ready-made and complete from all eternity, while for pragmatism it is still in the making and awaits part of its complexion from the future. On one side the universe is absolutely secure; on the other it is still pursuing its adventures. He calls this a question about the universe's structure, not just knowledge.
Chapter 35
The pragmatist side has only one edition of the universe, unfinished and growing, especially where thinking beings work. The rationalist side has many editions: one real, infinite, eternally complete folio, plus finite editions full of false readings, each distorted and mutilated in its own way. James uses this to reintroduce the rival hypotheses of pluralism and monism.
Chapter 36
James says the rationalist mind, radically taken, is doctrinaire and authoritative, always saying 'must be,' wanting the universe's belly-band tight. The radical pragmatist is happy-go-lucky and anarchistic, like Diogenes in a tub not minding loose hoops and staves letting in the sun. James presents this as a temperamental difference at work in choosing sides.
Chapter 36
Rationalists seek something to support the finite many, unify and anchor it: something eternal, unalterable, unexposed to accident. The mutable in experience must rest on immutability; behind the de facto world there must be a de jure duplicate fixed and previous, with everything already there in posse, appointed and provided without chance of variation. This alone, they think, makes the universe solid.
Chapter 36
The tough-minded, whose alpha and omega are facts, say that behind phenomenal facts there is nothing. They accuse rationalists of taking the mere name and nature of a fact and clapping it behind the fact as a duplicate entity to make it possible. James compares this to saying cyanide kills because it is a 'poison,' or we have five fingers because we are 'pentadactyls.'
Chapter 36
James argues pragmatism cannot reject any hypothesis if useful consequences for life flow from it. The notion of an absolute world is legitimate whether taken abstractly, as a memorandum orienting us toward the future, or concretely, since it determines some minds religiously and can change their lives. He insists pragmatism is a mediator, not a rejection of all rationalistic notions.
Chapter 37
James says some identify pragmatism with positivistic tough-mindedness, supposing it scorns every rationalistic notion as jabber, loves intellectual anarchy, and prefers a wild wolf-world without a master. He confesses surprise at how much of this misunderstanding he found in his own audience, since he has simultaneously defended rationalistic hypotheses that redirect us fruitfully into experience.
Chapter 37
The friend warns that pragmatism may accentuate the narrowness of narrow minds and, while stimulating about immediate bearings, tends to refuse the pleasure of dwelling on remoter bearings and issues. He compares its dangers to smug natural scientists who feel disdain for metaphysics, saying everything can be expressed in chemistry and physics except the vital principle of the whole.
Chapter 37
James says the use of the Absolute is proved by the whole course of men's religious history: the eternal arms are beneath. He cites Vivekananda's use of the Atman as emotional and spiritual rather than scientific, since no particular deductions follow from it. He then reads Walt Whitman's 'To You,' which addresses the reader directly and finds no imperfection in them.
Chapter 37
The author argues the pluralistic way suggests an infinitely larger number of details of future experience and sets definite activities at work in us. Though it seems prosaic and earthborn beside the mystical way, he insists it cannot be accused of brutal tough-mindedness. He warns that setting it positively against the first way would likely be misunderstood as denying nobler conceptions.
Chapter 38
The correspondent believes in pluralism yet wants a rational unity of all things to supplement his troubles. James says the writer actually faces forward into particular experience, interpreting it pluralistically, but believes he faces backward. He confuses a possible empirical unification with a necessary principle, failing to distinguish perfection as necessary principle from perfection as possible terminus ad quem.
Chapter 38
The author regards the correspondent as a genuine pragmatist without knowing it, one of those philosophic amateurs who want all good things going without being careful how they agree. The writer brandishes 'rational unity of all things' abstractly and accuses pluralism of conflicting with it, though concretely he means the pragmatically unified and ameliorated world. James adds that most of us remain in this vagueness.
Chapter 38
A concretely possible chicken requires: (1) the idea contains no essential self-contradiction; (2) no boys, skunks, or other enemies are about; and (3) at least an actual egg exists. As actual conditions approach completeness, the chicken becomes a better-grounded possibility; when conditions are entirely complete, it ceases to be a possibility and becomes an actual fact.
Chapter 39
It means some of the conditions of the world's deliverance actually exist. The more of these existent conditions there are and the fewer preventing conditions found, the better-grounded the salvation's possibility becomes and the more probable the deliverance becomes. James notes the term 'salvation' may be interpreted as diffusely or integrally as one likes.
Chapter 39
Pessimism holds the world's salvation impossible; optimism holds it inevitable. Meliorism, standing midway, treats salvation as neither inevitable nor impossible but as a possibility that becomes more probable as actual conditions of salvation multiply. James says optimism has long been the regnant doctrine in European philosophy, while pessimism was recently introduced by Schopenhauer and counts few systematic defenders.
Chapter 39
Against rationalists and monists, the author argues our acts are the parts of the world we know most intimately and completely, so they may be taken at face value as the world's actual turning-places and growing-places, the workshop of being. He rejects the objection that only the integral world itself can be the single real agent of growth.
Chapter 39
The author argues that despite talk of logic, necessity, categories, and the absolute, the only real reason anything should ever come is that someone wishes it to be here—it is demanded, perhaps to relieve even a tiny fraction of the world's mass. He calls this living reason, compared to which material causes and logical necessities are spectral things.
Chapter 40
The author describes the Absolute's world as one of wishing-caps and telepathy, where every desire is fulfilled instantly without placating surrounding or intermediate powers—he calls and it is. In our world, the individual's wishes are only one condition; other individuals with other wishes must be propitiated first, so Being grows under resistances and gets organized only gradually, from compromise to compromise.
Chapter 40
The author imagines the creator offering a world not certain to be saved, whose perfection is conditional on each agent doing its level best—an unwarranted, risky, co-operative adventure. He argues that normally constituted people, possessing healthy-minded buoyancy, would accept it as rational in the most living way, since it resembles the world we practically live in.
Chapter 40
The author argues that the absolutistic scheme appeals to the tender-minded while the pluralistic scheme appeals to the tough. He notes many would refuse to call pluralism religious at all, calling it moralistic instead, and observes that religion as self-surrender and moralism as self-sufficingness have often been pitted against each other as incompatibles in the history of thought.
Chapter 40
James states that "in the end it is our faith and not our logic that decides such questions," and he denies the right of any pretended logic to veto his own faith. He speaks here not officially as a pragmatist but says his pragmatism offers no objection to his taking sides with the more moralistic view and giving up the claim of total reconciliation.
Chapter 41
James argues that monotheism, insofar as it was religious rather than a scheme of classroom instruction for metaphysicians, has always viewed God as "but one helper, primus inter pares, in the midst of all the shapers of the great world's fate." He notes that original polytheism only imperfectly sublimated itself into monotheism, despite phrases like "there is no God but God."
Chapter 41
James says that on pragmatistic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true. He adds that experience shows it certainly does work, and that the problem is to build it out and determine it so it combines satisfactorily with all the other working truths. He cites his book on religious experience as evidence against charging his pragmatism with atheism.
Chapter 41
James says he firmly disbelieves that human experience is the highest form extant in the universe. He compares humans to canine and feline pets who inhabit our drawing-rooms and libraries, taking part in scenes whose significance they have no inkling of, merely tangent to curves of history beyond their ken. Just as pets' ideals sometimes coincide with ours, higher powers may work to save the world on ideal lines similar to our own.
Chapter 41
Text used: Project Gutenberg eBook #5116 (Public domain in the United States). Generated from the full text; cards paraphrase the source.
Version: Public domain edition. Retrieved 2026-10-27. Cards reviewed 2026-10-27.
These cards paraphrase the text for study. They are not a substitute for reading the book, and they do not reproduce long passages.
Upload a PDF, Word, or text file and get question-and-answer cards for closed-notes practice. Five cards are free, no signup.
Try 5 free cards