Philosophy
Empiricism vs. Absolutism
William James and Charles Sanders Peirce are both credited for their philosophical conceptualization of “pragmatism” in the late 19th century. (Point 304) Charles Peirce was hailed the “father of pragmatism” (“Pragmatism”) as he initiated the idea, while James propagated it (Point 304). Though the two philosophical fathers differ in the scope of their definition of pragmatism (Point 304), both agree that pragmatism is the philosophy that the truth is proven by practical means, to say in the simplest amd, perhaps, inadequate words. It is a breath of fresh air from philosophical ideas of pursuing the truth merely through “correspondence and coherence” (“Pragmatism”).
Empiricism vs. Absolutism
Two things are assumed or given in the argument: 1. there IS truth, and 2. we can obtain it. The absolutists believe that we can find the truth and know when we have found it. The empiricists believe that we can find it but cannot possibly be certain when we do. (12)
James (12) infers that human beings are absolutists by instinct. If some things make perfect sense to us, like the “laws” of arithmetic (four is less than five), or the “fact” of one's existence, then it is truth – by virtue of “objective evidence.” He may have even implied that there are no true empiricists. People who seems to be still “dogmatizes,” only the other way around. Example, people who say that it is arrogant of people to be conclusive of their religion are still being absolute about these people being arrogant. (13)
Argument
Nevertheless, “as reflective men,” James endorses that our absolutist instinct be considered a weakness and consider our experiments and experiences bringing us closer to the truth but not to hold any of it as final. Certitude and “objective evidence” are good ideals, but who knows where to really find them? There is only one truth that we can rely on and that is the present existence of our own consciousness. But who can say that it is a good starting point of knowledge, and ultimately, truth? (14)
Counter-Argument
In a logical angle, James' empiricism can be said to be a contradiction of the premises of the argument he himself laid. He made it a given that there IS truth and that it IS attainable. Therefore, the truth of the attainment of the truth IS attainable. In other words, if every truth is attainable, it is therefore possible to know the truth of when a truth is obtained.
Another weakness in James' argument is why even consider our absolutist instinct to be a weakness? True, our absolutist instincts have failed us so many times. We have falsified a lot of concepts we had considered facts throughout history. And truths that we hold until now have produced pain and suffering for so many. But is it our absolutist instinct that is the weakness or the absolute truth of the existence of mistakes or errors? In James' own argument, it is even “dogmatic” to be final about our absolutist instinct to be a weakness.
Conclusion
James considers empiricism to be the ideal of a “reflective”, philosophical man, unassuming and graciously receptive to experience and new ideas. By scholastic virtue, not exactly adherence to empiricism, conclusion for this paper would not be final and would be left to further experience and experimentation. After all, absolutism is achieved not by decisiveness, but honesty and truth. However, by virtue of experience, one goes through life every single moment by what he considers true, not by what he considers to be maybe true. Even the most empiricistic sort of man holds on to a truth, a hope or a dream that he believes he can achieve. Otherwise, what is the point of going forward?
Works Cited
James, William. The Will to Believe. Project Gutenberg. 8 May 2009. Web. 11 Feb 2013.
Point, Stevens. “The Hypothesized God of C. S. Peirce and William James.” The Journal
of Religion, Vol. 67, No. 3. Alexander, Gary. The University of Chicago Press, July 1987. 304-321. Print
“Pragmatism.” Science Encyclopedia. Web. 11 Feb 2013
