Comments on: William James, “The Will to Believe”

By: Adam Klug

Adam Klug — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:21:11 +0000

I will have to agree with Tania on this. The whole basis of pragmatism was to leave options open for every possible question. And with the way James questions certain views it shows that he has accepted a pragmatic view on certain subjects.

By: William Schwartz

William Schwartz — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:53:29 +0000

James gives the reader different examples, of what would make more sense to them, and what would not. His examples at times are not very good. Of course one can believe what ever you want, and this could perhaps distort the truth. Every one will look at things differently, and not everybody will have the same viewpoint. You can have 10 people reading a book, or looking at a picture. Each one of them who is reading the book, or looking at the picture, is coming up with there own interpretation of what they see. Yet the truth is in front of them.

By: Mike Pelnar

Mike Pelnar — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:15:36 +0000

James clearly embodies the pragmatic view of uncertainty in thought. What I really like about this piece is his opinion on how we dont have to prove something 100% in order to believe it. He even goes on to say that we should be prepared to be duped several times in our lives in the pursuit of knowledge but that there are worse things that can happen to a man in this world than being duped. He also made the argument that science and religion can co-exist as well.

By: David Voelker

David Voelker — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:59:36 +0000

Michelle: I think that we got to this issue in class, but just to be clear . . . James was quoting his opponent when he wrote: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” This was the position that James was arguing against. So I’m glad that you brought it up. –DV

By: Matt Streckenbach

Matt Streckenbach — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:56:03 +0000

I believe what he argue’s deals with what we talk about the rule of errors. What we do and do not know is not exact and therefore the truth we do not know and will never know therefore directly reflecting upon Pragmatism. That it is ok too have different view’s upon thing as long as you believe it too be the truth yet, for the most part he will tell you it is not the truth because we as humans can not grasp the truth.

By: Erica Spurgeon

Erica Spurgeon — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:37:03 +0000

I believe that James main argument is not everyone see’s eye to eye on issues. It is very much a pramatic issue because he questions EVERYTHING. Also, he gives you many options, especially with options themselves. I don’t think he believed in science because if everyone is seeing things differntly and have different positions, than you cannot come to one conclusion even if it’s tested and proven “right.” There is no right or wrong in the pragmatics mind. His argument is weak becuase of the things we talked about in the last class. He takes hope out of things, he is wishy washy and he gives you a lot of options (which can be seen as good and bad).

By: Michelle Kostka

Michelle Kostka — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:19:12 +0000

James did not seem to view science as a very inaccurate science. Especially the scientific hypothesis. He says, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” If one doubts anything that is not 100% proven true than one will never believe any science, since that is what science is a bunch of guesses that are either prove to be accurate to an extent or are proven inaccurate.

By: Tania Galligan

Tania Galligan — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:36:50 +0000

James’ argument reflects pragmatism because of his uncertainty of truth and fact. He writes about all these questions the have no pin point answers. The idea of his essay seems to be understanding how believing can have uncertainties. His ideas are pragmatic because he leaves lots of room for multiple options on beliefs.