William James’s Pragmatism: The Practical Value of Personal truth and
Liberation from Truth
Sam Fogarty
College of Arts and Science, Vanderbilt University
It is easy to mistake one’s beliefs about the world as absolute knowledge. In this paper, I argue that any view of knowledge as absolute, or objective, is a misrepresentation of the limits of human understanding. In contrast, I argue for the pragmatic use of truth as conceived by William
James. I contend that if one views truth as a practical instrument valued solely for its ability to help humans, one can place scientific and religious beliefs on equal footing. By valuing truth for its practical effects, one may return truth to its intended function: to be one’s closest ally in overcoming life’s challenges.
“The influences of the senses has in most men overpowered the mind to the degree that the walls of space and time have come to look solid, real and insurmountable; and to speak with levity of these limits in the world is the sign of insanity.”
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
With Pragmatism, William James expounds the practical value of truth by applying the pragmatic method to abstract metaphysical questions. James challenges the traditional view of truth as objective, existing separate from the human experience. Rather, he offers a method of “experiential empiricism” to explore life’s most important and challenging questions. The essays comprising Pragmatism employ easily intelligible language, as they were originally delivered as eight separate lectures in 1906 and 1907. Motivated by his own dissatisfaction with scientific theory and spiritual belief as sufficient guides to human satisfaction and sources meaning, James offers more than an academic treatise.
With the work, James directly addresses the seemingly incompatible views of spiritual belief and modern scientific discovery in order to illustrate Pragmatism’s ability to, “be the happy harmonizer of
Cited: James, William. Pragmatism and Other Writings. New York: Penguin Group, 2001. Print. Spring 2012 | Volume 8 | © 2012 • Vanderbilt University Board of Trust 7