Philosophy Final

Radical Empericism

(James) our knowledge of the world is based on our senses

True or false: the philosophers of scholasticism agree with Peirce that "we have no power of intuition"? Support your answer with specific examples.

False

True or false: according to John J Stuhr, meliorism is a logical consequence of absolutism. Explain and support your answer with a specific example.

False - meliorism (relies on small truths) is the idea that the world can be made better by human effort and absolutism deals with big truths. These are two opposite ideas

the following passage from George Santayana's paper "Tradition and Practice" expresses a point of view also advocated by all American pragmatists. What is it? Explain. "All traditions have been founded on practice: in practice the most ideal of them regain their authority, when practice really deals with reality, and faces the world squarely, in the interests of the whole soul. To bring the whole soul to expression is what all civilization is after. We must be patient, for the task is long; but the fields are always white for the harvest, and the yield cannot be insignificant when laborers go forth into the harvest with the high and diligent spirit which we divine in you."

Important lines - all civilization, whole soul which represents the centrality of the community (everything we do must improve the human condition which involves all of mankind)

what is, according to William James' pragmatism the criterion for truth? In other words, when is a specific idea or theory true? How does this criterion relate to the claim "The United States of America is the richest nation in the world"?

James believes that experience is a stream of consciousness and is formed by relations. For James, beliefs are not true until they have been made true by verification. This relates to the US because although this country may look like it is the richest nation because of the opportunities here, we still have to realize the work that needs to be done.

Why does Perice believe that Cartesianism is less plausible than the scholastic philosophy which Descartes sought to displace? Explain why Peirce believes this to be the case in relation to the criterion for certainty and methodology of philosophical reflection for those two schools of thought?

Peirce believes scholasticism is better because it relies on a community of people (catholic church) and and multiform argumentation (tries to explain everything)

Why does Peirce believe that there is NOT much difference between Cartesianism and the scholastic philosophy which Descartes sought to displace? State two fundamental reasons that support Peirce's position. Support your answer with specific examples from these schools of thought.

Peirce believes that there is not much difference between Cartesianism and scholasticism because they are both philosophies of contemplation, absolutism (big truths) and foundationalism (all truths come from one big one). Neither one of these philosophies are based on factual judgement like Perice says pragmatism is. The methods of inquiry for these schools of thought are that certainty lies within the individual conscienceness (Cartesianism) and the community of faith thinkers (scholasticism). These lead to conclusions that cannot be proven: mysteries of reason (Cartesianism) and mysteries of faith (scholasticism)

Why would Peirce rather prefer Schiller's view of pragmatism over William James's?

Peirce would rather support Schiller's view of pragmatism because like Peirce, Schiller supports objectivism while James supports subjectivism. Yet, Peirce differs from Schiller because Schiller believes that the criterion of truth lies within human beings, but Peirce knows that not every human is a scientific thinker

Why does William James claim that "But continuous transition is one sort of a conjunctive relation; and to be a radical empiricist means to hold fast to this conjunctive relation of all others"? Support your answer with a specific example of your own

This statement is a representation of what James thinks to be a radical empiricist means. They must include all experiences without adding anything else. James believes that if a whole is made, all the corruptions of dialectics and all the metaphysical fictions pour into our philosophy. For example, we know someone is nice because they have helped in the past.

True or false: William James rejects the belief that "Ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience, to summarize them and get about among them by conceptual short-cuts instead of following the interminable succession of particular phenomena." Support your answer with a specific example.

True - Schiller, Peirce and Dewey believe this, but they fail to take experience seriously, because they take shortcuts instead of following the interminable succession of particular phenomena

True or false: James' theism rejects the idea of "some kind of in immanent or pantheistic deity working in things rather than above them." Explain.

True because James believes that God works in our actions and what we do everyday. We are able to recognize God's work all around us, so he is seen in our actions rather than above us

True or false: according to John J Stuhr, fallibilism is a logical consequence of radical empiricism. Explain and support your answer with a specific example.

True. Radical empiricism means that we learn through experience and transactions so because of this, we make mistakes (fallibilism- we can be wrong through trial and error) example- touching a hot stove and knowing not to touch it next time

True or false: Peirce rejects both Ferdinand Schiller's and William James' versions of pragmatism. Explain why.

Tue because Schiller believes in humanism which Peirce believes is too broad and he rejects james because he is too subjectivist and relies too much on individuals (too narrow of a view) Peirce would rather rely on the community of experts

what is the fundamental difference between William James' and Alan Locke's conceptions of experience, and how does it relate to "the unfinished business of democracy"

William James believes that experience is subjective and groups of people can not have the same experiences. However, Locke believes that groups of people can have similar experiences and it is not just individual. This relates to the "unfinished business of democracy" because some leaders fail to see that most minorities are treated the same and face many hardships based on their appearance. This is the unfinished business democracy faces

Pragmatism

a way of dealing with problems or situations that focuses on practical approaches and solution

criterion of truth for pragmatism

community of thinkers/inquiries (scientific thinkers)

the centrality to community and the social

existence is social in the way that an individual is made up of their social interactions

states of conclusion for pragmatism

factual judgement

method of inquiry for Cartesianism

intuition and deduction

introspection

knowledge of the self from the internal

2 mistakes we make if we are not radically empiricist enough

metaphysical fiction and corruption of dialectics

pragmatism for Perice

method for determining meaning

method of inquiry for scholasticism

multiform argumentation (we can trace back to the first mover which ultimately leads to a conclusion)

states of conclusion for scholasticism

mysteries of faith

states of conclusion for Cartesianism

mysteries of reason

starting point of scholasticism

never questioning the fundamentals like God or human existence

pluralism

not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world, but rather many

Schiller pragmatism

objectivist criterion of truth - human beings Peirce's problem with this - not all humans are scientific thinkers

pragmatism perice vs. James

perice- objectivism - no reason to have fears, just gain knowledge about it james - subjectivism - individual experience

the continuity of science and philosophy

philosophers like Peirce and Dewey believed that these two subjects were connected

starting point of pragmatism

positive doubt (only doubt when necessary)

method of inquiry for pragmatism

scientific method (observation and experimentation)

meliorism

the belief that the world can be made better by human effort

fallibilism

the belief that we can be wrong because we go through trial and error (trying small truths)

criterion of truth for scholasticism

the community of Church thinkers

criterion of truth for Cartesianism

the ultimate test of certainty is to be found in the individual consciousness

is it plausible to claim that, as Peirce does, "we have no power of introspection"? Support your answer with a specific example of your own.

this is plausible because we can only know ourself through our actions (how we act, speak, etc.) and external factors. There is no way that we can look internally and know ourselves. example - we know our classmate is a giving person because they gave you a pencil

starting point of Cartesianism

universal doubt

Give two specific examples that support Peirce's position expressed in the following passage: "Every unidealistic philosophy supposes some absolutely inexplicable, unanalyzable ultimate; in short, something resulting from mediation itself not susceptible of mediation. Now that anything is thus inexplicable can only known by reasoning from signs. But the only justification of an inference from signs is that the conclusion explains the fact. To suppose the fact absolutely inexplicable is not to explain it, and hence this supposition is never allowable."

we can reason with signs we need to be able to explain with facts