An Evaluation of William Jamess Theory of Pragmatic Truth - Report Example

An Evaluation of William James’s Theory of Pragmatic Truth Truth is important because it becomes essential for the survival of an individualto be able to differentiate between lies, mistakes and inaccuracies which they may encounter in everyday life. Because of this, the concept of truth has been of interest to many philosophers who have presented various theories about truth. Theories such as the correspondence theory, the coherence theory, the consensus theory and the social constructivism theory present truth as being objective reality, an agreement or coherence with some established beliefs, a general agreement between individuals in a group or the evolution of concepts as a result of social processes. The theory of pragmatic truth which has been presented by the psychologist and philosopher William James attempts to measure truth in terms of its practical utility or the interests of individuals making judgments about truth. This theory was a natural consequence of the freedoms which were to be found in the new land of America and which made individuals view the world as it really was by making them accept concepts which were of use to them, when making difficult choices. William James was a psychologist and a philosopher and his theory of pragmatic truth illustrates this point when William James becomes more engrossed in thinking about the mental processes, models and past beliefs associated with reaching conclusions about the truth value of propositions, statements, utterances and messages etc. Logic is rejected and truth comes to be associated with the interests of individuals, their passions, rewards etc, even though it can be expected that any truth will be examined by a multitude of individuals with diverse interests. This essay takes a critical look at William James’s pragmatic theory of truth. Contents Introduction 4 William James’s Pragmatic Truth 6 Conclusion 11 References / Bibliography 12 Introduction The psychologist and philosopher William James was born in 1910 to philosopher Henry James Sr. He was studied medicine at Harvard University and later went to Germany to study psychology in Germany. On his return from Germany, he taught at Stanford, Columbia University and Harvard University. William James was also an author and his greatest masterpiece was his twelve hundred page work The Principles of Psychology which was published in 1890. The work consists of a blend of physiology, psychology, philosophy, and personal reflection (The Radical Academy). Apart from psychology, William James’s other concerns have been religion and an understanding of truth. He is also known as a leading philosopher who has been associated with pragmatism. Pragmatism tries to associate truth with consequences, utility and practicality. The pragmatic theory of truth is a philosophical theory which states that something is true if it is useful to believe that the concept is true (The Mead Project). Although truth in logic may have a more concrete dimension associated with it, pragmatic truth tries to settle metaphysical disputes by tracing the relationship of what is considered to be truth to its practical consequences. Hence, pragmatic truth is useful in the study of theology in which it is difficult to comprehend if a religious concept is true with the absolute certainty of human observation, the utility of human senses and the use of human intellect. Pragmatism as a philosophy only refers to those ideas which are practically applicable and seen to be of use. The value of ideas lies in their meaning and consequences, rather then in the ideas themselves (Jackman). The theory of truth which is presented by William James states that the concept of truth which is acceptable to individuals and presented in their thoughts or utterances, which could even be past utterances, is sensitive to human interests or inquiries for the future (Jackman). William James’s concept of the truth is intertwined with his concept of intentionality. Propositions or content of assertions, according to William James are concerned with non-intentional phenomenon such as strings of sound, brain processes or experiences which are associated with reality and come to be true or false for those analyzing the proposition. William James is more concerned with how these realities come to be true or false rather then about truth. Hence, the debate between William James and his opponents is as much about meaning then it is about truth itself (Louzecky). It appears that William James also tries to involve psychology into discussions about truth when he presents his theory that individuals keep their interest in mind when deciding what they should or should not consider to be the truth. Although William James never said it, it appears that his meaning of truth relates to how an individual’s “psychological states” can become propositional attitudes. James states in his Principles of Psychology that “the relation of knowing is the most mysterious thing in the world”. It, therefore, appears that William James is also concerned about human psyche and the processes of the mind when discussing truth (Jackman). Truth is important to individuals because it is important to recognize lies, mistakes and inaccuracies in everyday life. Failure to analyze the truth value of the content of sentences, statements, propositions, beliefs, judgments or ideas can mean that there will be a failure on the part of an individual to survive (Wikipedia). Apart from William James’s pragmatic theory of truth, other theories which have been presented about truth include the correspondence theory of truth which sees a correspondence between truth and objective reality, the coherence theory of truth which sees that there is a coherence between truth and a set of ideas, beliefs or values which are considered to be the truth and the consensus theory of truth which considers truth to be an agreement with a consensus which has been reached by some specified group. The social constructivism theory of the truth attempts to explain the acceptance of the truth value of an idea as a consequence of social processes in which power struggles between various factions in the society may also be involved. Hence, philosophers have attempted to explain the concept or meaning of truth in other contexts apart from the human utilitarian aspect which has been presented by William James (Wikipedia). It is, therefore, instructive to consider the concept of truth which has been presented by William James in the light of other concepts of truth which have been presented over time. Such an evaluation of the pragmatic truth will not only present a clearer picture of truth itself but will also enable all to acquaint themselves of the criticism of William James’s theory of pragmatic truth. The next section of this essay presents a critical evaluation of William James’s theory of pragmatic truth. William James’s Pragmatic Truth After considering William James’s writings, it can be clearly concluded that William James’s philosophy is an outgrowth of his psychology. He has clearly attempted to focus on individual gain or aspirations when discussing truth. Such a practical approach was perhaps necessary in the America of his time when difficult choices had to be made and these choices were mostly made on the merits of their practical utility. However, it has to be asked if truth can be so trivialized that it becomes dependant on the fantasies or wishes of individuals? Pragmatism was, however, important because it presented a way out of the dogma associated with institutions, theology, tradition or cultural beliefs (Landesbergen). It was pragmatism which presented an opportunity for Americans to view the world as it was, using their facilities for reasoning, observation and thinking. This made it possible for Americans to unchain themselves from the absurdities of the past which had been presented to them as truths and which had never been questioned or thought about. After all, this is what the United States of America was all about, freedom and the desire as well as the will to question. If no one had dared to question the divine truth propagated by the Church about an Earth centered universe, then how could humanity have progressed? However, William James does not present truth in terms of what humans can perceive as being the truth by using their mental facilities or senses. What William James says is that individuals twist truth to suite their purposes, after considering what gain can be derived for them from their version of the truth (The Mead Project). Surely, the question that has to be asked then is, can one man’s gain also be another man’s gain? Or is truth so elusive that it cannot withstand the collective scrutiny of a society or a community of individuals with varied interests? There are certain facts which are so glaringly obvious to all of humanity that it is impossible to treat them pragmatically. It is very well known that snow is white and there is no human feeling or interests which are likely to change that, except perhaps for a very selfish individual trying to make an oaf out of a simpleton who has never seen snow. The truth or falsehood of an interpreted sentence or message should be completely independent of the interests or enquiries of the individuals receiving the message (Jackman). Hence, the disagreement between William James and his critiques is not just about truth but also about meaning and it appears that he is thinking of individuals with little or no capacity for having the guts to speak the truth. Also, it appears that the truth which William James is referring to is more about political or theological statements then about observed truths in a society. Surely, truth cannot be completely dependant on individual interests. Even the lowliest individuals in a society cannot be expected to agree to everything and declare it to be the truth out of some consideration for reward. There is, therefore, a disagreement about meaning and truth which has led William James to talk to his opponents in terms of truth rather then meaning (Louzecky). There is a difference between William James and other contemporary philosophers when they are talking about truth. Truth for the contemporary philosopher is property of assertions, judgments and propositions. For William James, however, truth is about mental images and even names which go beyond mere propositions, property of assertions and judgments. In this context, an individual may indeed be telling the truth as they perceive it when they describe a mental model of some object or model which they are talking about. William James’s truth depends on an individual’s capacity to interpret reality and model this reality in their mind, something which is most certainly inherited from his thinking as a psychologist (Unger). William James appears to be more interested in the functioning of the human mind and its ability to perceive reality then about what most of humanity will agree on being the truth. Hence, an individual with the purest of intention may well be telling the truth as they see it, but this truth may not be agreeable as being the truth to others. A difference in mental capacity or the ability to perceive reality is, therefore, likely to be a determining factor for truth according to William James’s theory of pragmatic truth. The question of how individual thoughts come about in reality has a bearing on the truth which William James wants to discuss. The utterances or statements of an individual will ultimately have to face the scrutiny of the world and should they deviate from an overwhelming majority of consensus then they are likely to be rejected or the individual is likely to be declared as one with an inferior level of intellect. Passions of an individual certainly play a part in the perception of what an individual considers to be the truth. However, it has to be questioned if such passions can present a truth which is indeed legitimate (Jackman). William James states that “facts are what they are quite independently of us”. He also states that it will be inappropriate for individuals to make up their mind about the truth unless all the facts have been presented. The question that has to be asked is should men wait with impunity until coercive evidence has arrived before deciding about the truth and falsehood? Should personal likes, dislikes or relationships be permitted to present a tainted picture of the truth? William James portrays that believing that something is the truth will make it true. Hence, if an individual believes that they can win a 100 m race then it may well possibly help them win the race. However, it is also likely that a bout of over confidence can result in a disaster (Jackman). Thus, it appears that William James is not talking about absolute truths in the sense of perhaps a mathematician, but he is rather discussing probabilistic truths in the sense of the fuzzy logic of mathematics which has more to do with the real world then have the notions of exactness. William James’s theory of pragmatic truth also brings about some interesting thoughts on the issues of moral skepticism. Believing that something is good as being true means that there should be some personal interest in the thing being considered as being good. A belief that there exists a moral universe means that individuals consider a moral universe as being of benefit to humanity and to themselves. Perhaps something may be considered to be good because it produces at least some benefit to the individual. Perhaps there are some pleasant sensations, feelings or some hope associated with believing that the universe is moral and that something is good. Thus, perhaps it is important to regard as truth, the concept of God and theology, because such a concept brings about hope, contentment and security with the belief. However, it is not possible for individuals to make things good or bad by believing that they are good or bad. Simply believing that the universe is moral will not make the universe moral and having a concept of God which suits the individual does not mean that there is indeed a God which will fit the mental model (Unger). Thus, truths cannot be created by thinking that something is true. No matter how badly an individual may want to make something true, it will not be true unless it is indeed true. Although it is entirely possible that an individual may want to choose that something is true when they are unsure, because they such a thinking is more suitable for their psychological well being. Hence, it appears that William James’s pragmatic concept of truth is useful in situations when human rationality, intellect and senses are incapable of resolving if something is true or false. In such situations it is more appropriate for the human psyche to believe in what is better for the well being of the individual. An idea which blends in well with the general set of beliefs which an individual has already accepted as being true is more likely to be accepted as being the truth. Hence, the future directed set of truths is likely to be influenced by the past set of truths and any radical transformation is only likely if there is an overwhelming evidence for the intellect to accept the new truths. The pragmatist view will permit several different versions of the truth to be created as a result of an inquiry and such versions will be influenced by past beliefs. Thus, a resemblance with the past may constrain any future ideas about how things will be viewed. Hence, it appears that sharp abstractions and distinctions between truth and falsehood are just not permitted in the pragmatist philosophy of William James which attempts to explain the mental processes involved in the analysis of informational inputs to determine the truth values associated with the information (Putnam). The writings of William James appear to refute that he thinks that the world has an “essential” structure which should be considered when making an inquiry to ascertain the truth values associated with information. However, William James thinks that the distinctions that are made in the analysis of information depend upon interests. When an individual is presented with some new information which is not in harmony with an old and accepted belief system, strains are introduced which are modified by adjustments that occur to the old system of beliefs. However, different individuals will adjust to new experiences in a different way. Hence, the new experiences may create dissimilar adjustments in different individuals. This means that different interpretations are likely to be produced which will result in there being a lack of coherent truth, or meanings associated with a situation (Jackman). According to William James, the absolute truth will have to be arrived at or made up after a set of verification and analytical processes in the human brain. The path to absolute truth passes through a number of stages with which half truths are associated and according to the pragmatic philosophy of William James, the absolute truth is that truth towards which all the half truths converge. Once again, William James tends to focus on the mental processes which are involved in arriving at the truth rather then the nature of the absolute truth itself. There is an attempt to describe the processes and the stages in human reasoning that are involved in reaching conclusions rather then the nature of the truth or the conclusion itself. This is what is to be expected from a psychologist as opposed to an abstract mathematician or a person interested in logic, although knowledge of mathematics or logic can be considered to be an existing set of beliefs which influences the capacity to analyze information and determine its truth value (Jackman). William James asserts that “Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its verification”. James did accept that truth has to correspond to reality. However, he boldly went forth to assert that "The true . . . is only the expedient in the way of our thinking" (Kemerling). Many philosophers have considered logic to be a part of rationality. However, William James rejected logic in his A Pluralistic Universe and this has been considered by many to be irrational from a philosophical point of view. William James prefers to believe instead in the models which the mind creates of reality. He even goes so far to suggest that individuals use different models to cope with different aspects of reality. He also asserts that the concepts of reality are metaphorical in nature. Hence, it appears that William James is more concerned with how the mind perceives reality then with the abstract concepts of truth. After all, if every individual was to present their own version of the truth based on their interests, then life and indeed coming to grips with the world will become very difficult indeed (Jackman). Conclusion From the views presented by critics and the discussion presented above, it can be concluded that William James’s theory of pragmatic truth gets more involved with the mental processes which the human mind passes through in order to come to an understanding about the truth. The fact that William James’s theory rejects logic is of serious concern to his critics because contemporary philosophy places great value on logic in trying to understand the nature of truth. However, it has to be stated that William James’s theory of pragmatic truth is of practical value when it becomes difficult for human intellect and rationality to determine conclusively what can be considered to be the truth. References / Bibliography 1. Hookway, Christopher. “Truth and Reality: Putnam and the Pragmatist Conception of Truth”. University of Sheffield. 2000. September 15, 2005. http://www.shef.ac.uk/philosophy/staff/hookway/truth_and_reality.htm 2. Jackman, Henry. “James Naturalistic Account of Concepts and his Rejection of Logic”. Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. 1999. September 17, 2005. http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/papers/James-logic.pdf 3. Jackman, Henry. “James Pragmatic Account of Intentionality and Truth”. Transactions of the C.S Peirce Society Winter 1998, Vol. XXXIV, No. 1: pp. 155-181. September 15, 2005. http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/papers/James-int-truth.pdf 4. Jackman, N. “Papers Available Online”. University of York. 2000. September 15, 2005. http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/online.html 5. Kemerling, Garth. “James: Pragmatism and Empiricism”. Philosophypages.com. 2002. September 17, 2005. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6c.htm#truth 6. Landsbergen, David et al. “The Pragmatic Spirit: America’s Contribution to Philosophy and Public Administration”. Ohio State University. January 5, 2000. September 15, 2005. http://ppm.ohio-state.edu/~landsbergen/papers/Prag.rtf 7. Louzecky, David. “William Jamess Pragmatic Theory of Rational Belief Explained and Refuted”. University of Wisconsin, Manitowoc. 2000. http://www.manitowoc.uwc.edu/staff/awhite/DAVE.4.htm 8. Putnam, Ruth Anna. “The Cambridge Companion to William James”. Cambridge University Press. April 13, 1997. September 15, 2005. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521459060/002-3884690-5141630?v=glance 9. The Mead Project. “Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking”. The Mead Project, Department of Sociology, Brock University, Canada. 2004. September 15, 2005. http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/James/James_1907/James_1907_toc.html 10. The Radical Academy. “The Philosophy of William James”. The Radical Academy. 2003. September 15, 2005. http://radicalacademy.com/philjames.htm 11. Unger, Roberto M. “The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound”. Harvard University. 2000. September 15, 2005. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/unger/english/docs/pragmatism.doc 12. Wikipedia. “Truth” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 2005. September 16, 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth 13. William James. “Pluralism, Pragmatism, and Instrumental Truth”. From A Pluralistic Universe, New York, 1909, pp. 321-4 and Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking [1907], New York, l909, pp. 52-61. September 15, 2005. http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/jpluralism.html 14. William James. “The Meaning of Truth”. Prometheus Books. May 1, 1997. September 15, 2005. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573921386/002-3884690-5141630?v=glance and http://www.authorama.com/meaning-of-truth-1.html Read More