ŷ������

Let's move the discussion of the background and general information about James and this work from the Planning folder to this folder. No spoilers about the content of the work, please, but background information on James and lectures is fine. Somebody asked about a comparison of James and Freud, and if anybody wants to comment on that without getting into Varieties specifically, that would be fine. Also, James was known as an advocate of pragmatism, which in general terms might be worth outlining.

I saw this article yesterday which mentions James:

I haven't listened to this, but it may be helpful:

Rex wrote: "I saw this article yesterday which mentions James: ."

Thought-provoking. It would explain some of the findings of experienced meditators.

James vs. Freud, I would think they may have some general parallels regarding general questions of existence but seem to differ widely on humanity's primary motivations and religion itself. What was the source of James' ideas, so novel at the time? It seems to me the religious aspect in James' writings is really more intellectual and cultural and not really about any particular religion at all, and for James it seemed one of many drivers of human behavior. Freud, on the other hand, seemed to believe human sexuality was the core explanation for human behavior.

Dianne wrote: "...What was the source of James' ideas, so novel at the time?..."

Were they? So far, many have felt very much late nineteenth century to me, but not sure I have good points of judgment.

Lily wrote: "Dianne wrote: "...What was the source of James' ideas, so novel at the time?..."

Were they? So far, many have felt very much late nineteenth century to me, but not sure I have good points of judgm..."

Lily, good point. I think James shared some ideas of his contemporaries but others were more novel. It's been so long since I've read any of his work but I seemed to recall that some of his thoughts on habit and functionality, were more his own. I can't recall how that fits in with his lectures on religion though, but I think they had some role. I suspect after reading this it will be tough not to dive into some of the other topic areas that James focused in, as I think religion was just a piece of his overall thought. And of course he always touted himself as the first teacher of psychology, but perhaps that was more publicizing thoughts that were percolating in the main at the time.

Dianne wrote: "... some of his thoughts on habit and functionality, were more his own ..."

I understand that (1890) was his main contribution to the then fledgling discipline of psychology.

The book must be dated now (though I recently saw it recommended in an otherwise devastating criticism of "The Will to Believe"). But it seems not to be discredited, as is most of Freud's work.

Whether The Varieties still has any value for psychology remains to be seen.

Wendel wrote: "Whether The Varieties still has any value for psychology remains to be seen. ..."

Considering the structure of the lectures, I am beginning to realize how difficult it may well be to comment upon them as one goes. Parts seem almost point and counterpoint.

But I have already ranted (to myself) at least at one point in the unfolding.

Well, from "In the Maelstorm," here's what I found regarding James/Freud:

"Where Freud insisted on the importance of the unconscious, James, who knew Freud's work before he met him, insists on the importance of consciousness, which he understood as a stream, a process" (xiv).

James "was a major force in developing the modern concept of consciousness, at the same time that Freud was developing the modern concept of the unconscious" (5).

James had taught abnormal psychology for four years, 1893-1897. "For Freud, the subconscious was a pathological formation, a repressed or otherwise distorted realm made up of decayed or dislodged and distorted bits of our normal consciousness.....
increasingly, James tended to look on the subconscious as something not pathological but normal, though different from our daylight consciousness" (348).




I liked this: 1895, James giving a talk at Harvard ("Is Life Worth Living?):

"...the new interest in abnormal psychology--- in Janet, Breuer, and Freud---and the revelation of the hidden self [fed] into James's religious search.

James writes: "The deepest thing in our nature is this Binnenleben [hidden life, hidden self]...this dumb region of the heart in which we dwell alone with our willingnesses and our unwillingnesses, our faiths and fears. As through the cracks and crannies of caverns those waters exude from the earth's bosom which then form the fountain-heads of springs, so in these crepuscular depths of personality the sources of all our outer deeds and decisions take their rise" (356).


1909, "James went to Worcester 'in order to see what Freud was like,' but the one he hit it off with --- up to a point -- was Jung." (514).

Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844��89). Poems. 1918.

68. ‘The child is father to the man��


‘THE CHILD is father to the man.��
How can he be? The words are wild.
Suck any sense from that who can:
‘The child is father to the man.��
No; what the poet did write ran, 5
‘The man is father to the child.��
‘The child is father to the man!��
How can he be? The words are wild.


In that case, this is the household in which the child William James grew up:

because I believe that background is important to consider. (I can’t use the James quote from Varieties here as we aren’t to discuss the actual book yet �� )

I’m quick browsing through my book on the Jameses. House of Wits. I think it sheds light on William James’s interest in religion. May be relevant to Varieties. Longish, but no spoilers.

(view spoiler)[William James’s grandfather, William James, came to America as a poor immigrant from Ireland. Made a HUGE fortune (one of the richest men in NY State), something akin, if I remember correctly, to that of Cornelius Vanderbilt. Had, with a group of other speculators, stake in Erie Canal and huge tract of the land where Syracuse is now situated. This William James (the grandfather) had 14 children�� so although there was enough money for his son Henry James, Sr. to live pretty well, the children of Henry James, Sr. kinda had to find ways to support themselves. (kinda)


Henry James, Sr. Was an alcoholic for about 30 years. Even at age 10. As he later recalled, he plunged into “the habit of taking a drink of raw gin or brandy on my way to school morning and afternoon�� (31). At 13, he ran into a stable to put out a fire. (He and other boys had been kicking fire balls around.) His pants, “sprinkled with turpentine from [an] earlier balloon experiment,�� flamed up. The leg had to be amputated just below the knee. Performed w/o anesthetic. Henry James spends two years in bed. “to help him cope with the pain, his father and his doctors plied him with whiskey and other strong spirits�� (34). Two years later�� the leg was found to be diseased�� another amputation�� more liquor for the pain. Magnetic personality.

According to the author, because the family moved and traveled so often --- even before Henry Sr. was searching for the perfect education for his sons --- they were more enmeshed with one another��. the family was the only stable thing in their lives.

So�� the constant exposure to new places and people might have primed Wm James to be more open to new ideas, yes?

And the constant of his father (strong personality) might have made him more receptive to his father’s interests, yes?

“Between 1825 and 1835, more than thirteen hundred revivals erupted across the state. [When Henry Sr was growing up there.] Old and new sects proliferated��.. The pent-up fire of Protestant revivalism, raging during Henry’s youth, would later propel him into theology…��(33).

“In 1835 […] Henry had at least tried to deal with his alcohol addiction, as part of a personal religious renewal; he had felt his own emptiness and had tried to fill it with God.�� He enrolled in the Princeton Theological Seminary (46).

Henry proposes to Mary. “Henry insisted that marriage had nothing to do with the corruption of organized churches.�� The two had a civil service ceremony (53).


Henry attends a lecture of Emerson’s. Follows up. Becomes close friends. “Henry seized on Emerson’s high moral ideas as a cure for the ‘barrenness�� that had haunted his life�� (65).

William James is born.

Encouraged, Henry gives his own series of lectures on “Literal Christianity”�� in which he attacked literal or orthodox Christianity (69).

1843, William not yet 2, Henry six-months old�� Henry Sr has family travel to Europe. London. Emerson had given Henry a letter of introduction to Thomas Carlyle (75).

1844. On to Paris. Henry James has decided that Carlyle is not “a man of ideas.��

In May, Henry James�� �� ‘in a lightning flash�� as he later remembered it, suffered a bolt of fear and panic that shook him to his foundations. A break down. His doctors prescribed “a life in the open air.�� German spas (82).

Henry’s friend interprets the malady “according to the beliefs of Emanuel Swedenborg. A “vastation.�� A vital stage in a spiritual journey. Henry develops deep interest. If I remember rightly, Henry is for the rest of his life a Swedenborgian, although, according to his son, one with a “frankly independent and disturbingly irregular�� connection�� (98).

Back in NY, Henry Sr “threw himself into work he’d ostentatiously titled ‘The Divine Life in Man’�� (101).

1850ish�� Henry writes an editorial in the New York Tribune asserting “he had stopped drinking cold, and by a sheer act of will�� (107). ??? Possible influence on James, The Will to Belive???
“Alcoholism amounted to a habit, Henry theorized. ‘Like all habits, its strength lies in a diseased will’�� (108). And he publishes “Moralism and Christianity; or, Man’s Experience and Destiny�� (108).

The children didn’t know what to tell people their father did for a living. “Say I am a philosopher,�� Henry prompted them, “say I’m a seeker after truth…��

�� ‘What church do you go to?�� was another question the James children heard, and it often distressed them. Religion pegged people in the nineteenth-century America, with its rival Protestant sects.�� The children were teased (114-15).

Henry Sr explained that they ‘could plead nothing less than the whole privilege of Christendom and that there was no communion…from which [they] need find [themselves] excluded�� (115).
(hide spoiler)]


House of Wits: An Intimate Portrait of the James Family

Adelle wrote: "Binnenleben [hidden life, hidden self]"

Is "Binnenleben" a psychological term? I've never heard it until now and I couldn't find a definition.
First I thought it might be a typo to "Innenleben" (=interior life) but since this is a spiritual term with a clear definition, psychology may have avoided it. The word "binnen" means "within", so directly translated we would arrive at "within life". "Within" and "hidden" are not synonymous in either language - hence my question.

You made me curiosity. It apparently isn't a misspelling as James used the word elsewhere, too. ( ).

You may be correct in thinking it might be a psychological term. I found this book title from 1894. The Second Life.


The German I learned in high school is mostly forgotten. Das tut mir leid. Ha ha. I'm not even sure I wrote that correctly!

Adelle wrote: "Das tut mir leid. Ha ha. I'm not even sure I wrote that correctly! "

Perfect! :)

Given the endless proliferation of compound words in German, even a native speaker like myself is constantly confronted with new creations. When you add any sort of "Fachsprache" - language/terminology specific to a discipline, on top of that, things get interesting to say the least!

From my limited understanding I would say that James considers the spiritual realm while Freud concentrates on the physical. It is interesting to compare them.

A word that I encountered yesterday that may show up in this discussion of Varieties:

noumenon

1 Kantianism a : an object that is conceived by reason and consequently thinkable but is not knowable by the senses : thing-in-itself b : an unknowable object (as God or the soul) whose existence is theoretically problematic

2: an object of purely rational apprehension as opposed to an object of perception

Origin of NOUMENON

German, from Greek nooumenon that which is conceived, thought, from neuter of present passive participle of noein to conceive, think, from nous mind

First Known Use: 1796 (sense 1)

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, s.v. “noumenon,�� accessed May 17, 2016, .

Note the late first known use.

Seems to be used in contrast to "phenomenon." (Its M-W dictionary entry is too long and complicated to want to reproduce here.)

By definition, freedom is a noumenon.

Nemo wrote: "By definition, freedom is a noumenon."

By definition of "freedom" or by definition of "noumenon"?

(I presume "democracy" can be defined in such a way as to be treated as a "phenomenon"?)

By definition of noumenon, freedom is a noumenon.

Kant went through a lot of trouble to preserve the idea of freedom in the face of the deterministic Newtonian physics, by compartmentalizing the former as "noumenon" and the latter as "phenomenon".

Nemo wrote: "By definition of noumenon, freedom is a noumenon.

Kant went through a lot of trouble to preserve the idea of freedom in the face of the deterministic Newtonian physics, by compartmentalizing the ..."

Thx, Nemo.

This may be of interest to some here. These are new names to me.

"He is Quentin Meillassoux, the author of After Finitude (Continuum, 2008). The second is almost entirely unknown outside of France. His name is Mehdi Belhaj Kacem but he often goes by his initials, MBK."

So a horse is a phenomenon, but a unicorn is a noumenon.

And freedom just another fantasy (an object that is conceived by reason and consequently thinkable but not knowable by the senses).

Kenneth wrote: "Noumenon, in other words, are spiritual realities...."

Well, I may perhaps agree that spiritual realities are noumena by the time we get done with James, but for the moment I'm going to leave open the possibility that some spiritual realities may be phenomena. As I understand the word, however, noumenon has broader applicability than being necessarily a spiritual reality.

According to Kant, the noumenal cannot be known. If that is true, James' study of religious experiences would be limited to the phenomena only. He can observe how religious people talk, act, pray or meditate --or one can do brain scan nowadays, but none of these would give any knowledge of the "thing-in-itself".

So a unicorn would be a phenomenon if it existed, but it doesn't.

Is there anything that doesn't exist, but would be a noumenon if it did?

Patrice wrote: "A unicorn skeleton has been discovered recently. My point is that just because there is no sensory evidence now, doesn't mean something never existed. Haven't there been many scientific theories th..."

Here we get into what is knowable and where our limitations lay. Rationally, we know there must be something before the Big Bang. Being part of this universe, we'll never penetrate this reality. Same thing goes for the time horizon. The universe keeps expanding, but what is beyond the edge of the universe we'll never know.

Kenneth wrote: "Though I would question your statement that "spiritual realities may be phenomena." Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. To me, the phrase "spiritual reality" implies that it is something outside the realm of the physical. You may have SIGNS of the spiritual reality, but it is not the spiritual reality itself. In the Catholic faith, we call those signs "Sacraments." Also, the body would be a sign of the spiritual reality of the soul. Perhaps in a broader sense, the whole material reality would be a sign of the existence, truth, goodness, and beauty of God."

Very well put!

Patrice wrote: "Is it possible to prove that something does not and has never existed?"

The largest prime number does not exist and never has. The proof is in Euclid.

Roger wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Is it possible to prove that something does not and has never existed?"

The largest prime number does not exist and never has. The proof is in Euclid."

Now you piqued my interest! Why is that? Is it because once you get into really high numbers they all can be divided by more than 1?

Kerstin wrote: "Roger wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Is it possible to prove that something does not and has never existed?"

The largest prime number does not exist and never has. The proof is in Euclid."

Now you pique..."

Here's the proof: Suppose there is a largest prime. Therefore there is a finite number of primes. Multiply all the primes together and add one to the result. That new number has a remainder (of 1) when divided by any of the primes smaller than itself. Therefore it is also prime, and larger than the supposed largest. This is a contradiction. So our initial supposition (that there is a largest prime) must be wrong.

Roger wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Roger wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Is it possible to prove that something does not and has never existed?"

The largest prime number does not exist and never has. The proof is in Euclid...."

Thanks!

In my morning fog I assumed there was a largest prime number, exactly what you said was not possible! I blame it on lack of coffee :)

Mathematic thinking is a world on its own! Usually I do get it once I get my brain in gear, but I've always been really slow. What is amazing to me is that there are people who can think in these higher abstract terms and get it right.

Kenneth wrote: "... You may have SIGNS of the spiritual reality, but it is not the spiritual reality itself. In the Catholic faith, we call those signs "Sacraments." Also, the body would be a sign of the spiritual reality of the soul"

I thought Catholics believe the Eucharist is spiritual reality, not just a sign of it. I'm not familiar with Catholicism at all, pardon my ignorance.

Roger wrote: "Is there anything that doesn't exist, but would be a noumenon if it did?"

The largest prime number, since you've shown the proof that it doesn't exist. (However, I don't know whether or not Kant classified numbers as noumenal).

The "largest prime number" example sounds like one of Kant's antinomies. Fascinating stuff, by the way. Are you sure you all wouldn't rather read Critique of Pure Reason than James?

I'm not sure the largest prime number can be said to not exist. Rather there is no number x such that 'x is the largest prime number' is true

David wrote: "I'm not sure the largest prime number can be said to not exist. Rather there is no number x such that 'x is the largest prime number' is true"

I don't see the difference.

There is no such number = such number does not exist

Edit: The term "the largest number" implies a limit, and the proof against it is basically a proof that there is no limit to what is potentially or actually infinite.

Thomas wrote: "Are you sure you all wouldn't rather read Critique of Pure Reason than James? "

I would vote for the Critique if it is included in the next poll, though I suspect it has a far lesser chance of being selected than Aristotle.

Nemo wrote: "I thought Catholics believe the Eucharist is spiritual reality, not just a sign of it."

A good word to substitute for 'sign' is 'manifestation'. Both words imply a hidden reality.

Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I thought Catholics believe the Eucharist is spiritual reality, not just a sign of it."

A good word to substitute for 'sign' is 'manifestation'. Both words imply a hidden reality."

But if it is manifested, it is no longer hidden. :)

Kenneth wrote: " We only see what appears to be bread and wine. The spiritual reality is there, but all our senses perceive is the physical manifestation of the bread and wine. "

If I understand you correctly, pardon the crude expression, although they look like bread and wine, smell like bread and wine, taste like bread and wine, and I presume are digested like bread and wine, they are not bread and wine in reality?

If that is the case, why do you have to physically partake of it? Is the spiritual reality, though it can't be perceived by our senses, yet confined in time and space, like the physical objects that we do perceive?

Kenneth wrote: "The spiritual reality is connected to (for lack of a better phrase), but not identical with, the physical manifestation. We see the physical manifestation, but it points to some spiritual reality that cannot be seen in itself."

The finer points of definition :)
You "think" you have it nailed down, and then there is a detail you missed!

Patrice wrote: "Is it possible to prove that something does not and has never existed?"

Not an idea, but a physical thing, I think yes. I think it's possible by the laws of physics and biomechanics to prove that no elephant more than 1,000 feet tall but weighing less than 5 pounds and capable of running 100 miles per hour has ever existed.

Hey all, it's been quite a while. I'll be joining in on this one! I've been reading the formative works of pragmatism over the past couple months and Varieties is next on my reading list.

Can anyone recommend some good background material before we get started?

Dianne wrote: "Can anyone recommend some good background material before we get started?"

Hi, I'm new to this group, and a little intimidated by the discussion so far, but I have been wanting to read some William James, and this looked like an excellent place to start, with some excellent discussion.

As for background material, I noticed in Mike's msg #54 he mentions pragmatism, and that reminded me of the Pulitzer prize winning book The Metaphysical Club, a fascinating history of the gathering of some amazing minds that eventually shaped the American philosophy on religion and education, and also science, in the late 1800s.

William James was one of the members of the club, and there was a very good section devoted to the background of the James family, with speculation about why the brothers took different directions as they did. I've given the book away, and can't remember the details, or I'd give them. I remember the family traveled a great deal, and the boys did not have a very stable childhood, and it had an impact on them.

The author (Louis Menand) also dealt with metaphysics and Transcendentalism of the time, along with the rise of pragmatism. An excellent book, by the way, which reads a little like a mystery as it unfolds through time.

Janice(JG) wrote: "Dianne wrote: "Can anyone recommend some good background material before we get started?"

Hi, I'm new to this group, and a little intimidated by the discussion so far, but I have been wanting to r..."

Welcome to the group, Janice, and don't be intimidated. We only sound crazy sometimes, usually between reads. We shall be returning to earth shortly.

Janice(JG) wrote: "Hi, I'm new to this group, and a little intimidated by the discussion so far,."

No feeling intimidated allowed here! That's one of our core rules. [g]

And thanks for the suggestion about the Metaphysical Club. We did look at Emerson and Transcendentalism last winter, so will have fun looking for connections to points made in that discussion.

Janice(JG) wrote: "Dianne wrote: "Can anyone recommend some good background material before we get started?"

Hi, I'm new to this group, and a little intimidated by the discussion so far, but I have been wanting to r..."

That sounds like an amazing book. I am relatively new to the group as well and hope you will enjoy our discussions. The last time I read James was over twenty years ago, and before that in first year university. Philosophy is not my strong point, so I am finding this conversation fascinating. Literature and modern history are more my style.

That looks like a perfect choice Janice thanks so much! On hold at the library already :)

Here's a New York Times review I came across today of a relatively recent anthropology book that follows in the tradition of James (who gets a brief mention):

Kenneth wrote: ".The third question is MUCH more complicated. Aquinas explains why, and I haven't spent a lot of time studying the matter (since I have had no reason to do so),.."

Thank you for the explanation, Kenneth.

I believe Aquinas' notion of "accidents" came from Aristotle, but Aristotle would deny the existence of substance apart from matter. I've yet to read Aquinas firsthand to understand how he reconcile the two doctrines.

Just out of curiosity, what type of questions do the students in your religion class frequently ask?