The word “belief” has nearly no meaning anymore, in the recognized languages, and ineptly approaches the reality to which I am referring. — James Baldwin (1976/2011, 118–119)
WilliamJames’ “The Will to Believe” (1896/1979) continues to attract serious scholarly attention. This might
WilliamJames on the Nature of Religious Belief
In his essay ‘The Will to Believe’, WilliamJames sets out a case for religious belief.
His primary antagonist, William Kingdon Clifford, argues that religious belief ought to be shunned in the face of insufficient evidence. Although
the presentation of an earlier version of the manuscript.
In his own day, WilliamJames was one of the more influential figures both in philosophy and psychology, and his work continues to inspire researchers in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience such as with Antonio
WilliamJames’s influence on the philosophical tradition of phenomenology—and its later progeny, phenomenology of religion—is well-documented, although in discussions of the latter his name is often eclipsed by the likes of Eliade, Otto, Smart, and others. James is perhaps more well-known for his
pluralistic option characterized by greater localization and smaller, more fluid political units.
David Schlosberg states that many contemporary theorists who argue for this latter alternative vision of democracy’s future owe an unacknowledged debt to “the themes of pluralists such as WilliamJames
In his 1925 co-authored study of The City , Robert Park recounts a peculiar comment made by his former Harvard teacher, WilliamJames: “‘Progress,’ as I once heard WilliamJames remark, ‘is a terrible thing.’” 1 The peculiarity of James’s remark emanates in part from the
“‘Progress,’ as I once heard WilliamJames remark, ‘is a terrible thing.’”
Pragmatism has long been recognized as a philosophy of progress. Historians of pragmatism and pragmatist philosophers alike take progress as a necessary and unquestioned feature
William James’s understanding of the concept of experience has much in common with ideas in Chinese traditional philosophy. This connection, however, has remained unexplored. Here we introduce the idea of ontological epistemology as a way to bring these important commonalities into view. By highlighting two features of the concept of experience in Chinese philosophy, we suggest that the perspectives of holism and relationism are common to both James and the Chinese tradition. With regard to the personal and impersonal characteristics of radical experience and its commensurability with Chinese philosophy, we will pay attention to the self-dissolving aspect of both. However, there are still some theoretical complexities that remain unresolved, which clearly show the possibility of further research in the comparative study of contemporary pragmatism and Chinese philosophy.
First, let’s discuss why I am not interested in what they have to say about what they call epistemic modest pluralism . I even stated temporally that I was responding to the 2016 version of their argument and their overall treatment of WilliamJames in their original 2005 article. Philosophers