William James’ “The Will to Believe” (1896/1979) continues to attract scholarly attention. This might seem surprising since James’ central claim—that one may justifiably believe p despite having inconclusive evidence for p—seems both very clear and also very wrong. I argue that many of the interpretive and substantive challenges of this essay can be overcome by framing James’ thesis in terms of what Tamar Gendler defines as “alief.” I consider two readings of James’ position (one charitable, the other super-charitable) and conclude that the “will to believe” rests on a misnomer. “The Will to Alieve” is more accurate—though the “Right to Alieve” is even better still.
HonnoldA. (2018) How I Climbed a 3,000-foot Vertical Cliff — Without Ropes [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_honnold_how_i_climbed_a_3_000_foot_vertical_cliff_without_ropes?language=en.)| false
NossiterAdam. (2015a) A Shot, a Glimpse of an AK-47, and U.S. Servicemen Pounced on Gunman on Train to France. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/world/europe/americans-recount-gunmans-attack-on-train-to-france.html.)| false
NossiterAdam. (2015b, August 23) Americans Resist Hero Label After Foiling Train Attack. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/europe/americans-france-train-attack-spencer-stone-alek-skarlatos.html.)| false