Fascinating! I've always thought of a quote from Nietzsche that he sent to his sister after leaving behind his faith: "If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire."
Peirce claims that all inquiry actually seeks nothing more than the overcoming of our doubts -- i.e. the settlement of belief, rather than the establishment of truth. For example, Peirce would claim that all Descartes was doing in his 'Meditations' was attempting to rationally exorcise his own doubts (and demons). While I am far from agreeing with Peirce on the nature of inquiry, I can't help but think how very often Nietzsche himself appeared to criticize the dispassionate search for truth, and even went so far as to question the ultimate value of truth itself.
I'm studying philosophy in university right now. In the first philosophy class I took, we read and discussed James, Pascal, and Clifford. You did an excellent job of summarizing all of them in this video. Nice job Amy!
Philosophy is just someone's opinion, they form an opinion first then back peddle to formulate an argument supporting their opinion. That's why the Scientific Method was invented, to dismiss claims based solely on human psychology.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:50 *📜 William James's essay "The Will to Believe" explores faith, truth, risk, and evidence, aiming to justify belief in religious matters.* 02:14 *🤔 Options for James consist of two hypotheses: living or dead, forced or avoidable, and momentous or trivial.* 04:08 *🛣️ In the context of faith, a genuine option is one that is living, forced, and momentous.* 06:18 *🧠 James argues that our passionate nature, not just deliberate volitions, influences our beliefs, but these beliefs must still meet the criteria of genuine options.* 08:19 *🛑 James differentiates between knowing the truth and avoiding error, asserting that sometimes being wrong is necessary for pursuing truth.* 11:01 *🙏 Religion offers two main affirmations: eternal truths and present benefits, appealing to our passionate nature and desire for truth.* 12:38 *🎟️ James suggests that sometimes we need to make a leap of faith to discover truth, comparing it to buying a lottery ticket where belief opens the door to potential discovery.* 13:49 *🛕 James justifies religious faith based on individual cultural backgrounds and the notion of a "living hypothesis," implying different religions hold varying relevance based on personal experience.* 14:59 *🏔️ The lecture ends with a quote urging courage in the face of uncertainty, encapsulating the theme of embracing belief amidst life's uncertainties.* Made with HARPA AI
I love William James he's someone that's always appealed to me and good to get a taster of him here! As ever great work and congrats on crossing the 2k!!
Thank you so much!! The essay was hard for me to understand, its the first reading I was given in my intro to philosophy course in university. This video helped me get some good notes and actually comprehend the arguments lol...
Wonderfully put together. Near the end I began thinking he's speaking of hypothesis and the scientific method, but adding a requirement that intellectual diagnosis cannot be used. Someone makes an educated guess and studies or performs an experiment to test it. But to do the experiment you'd likely believe in some way that it's true (meeting halfway). Or at least that it's true that it will fail, giving credence to some other hypothesis.
A good explanation to a weak argument, agnostics are, by definition, always open to new evidence, but the truth is provisional, which James seems to object to them being so that is he is suffers from confirmation bias.
In his mind choice has to start with belief. If an option is multi layered you can not force it, it's difficult to prove and so dead. So the only option is to force multi layered thinking to the brink of choice. The point of failure that then becomes truth. Yet.. are all options not truth to begin with? Is the only real failure in you and not the actual information? Progression in this comes from a weak fracture, a disbelief in all other truths. The inability to make sense out of too much information. A settlement that the structure one has already set up in belief hold the only answer to choice.
i encourage yall to believe in God (due to my experience, it has helped me become happier and more centered) but if you dont, i have to respect your opinion.
What James' analysis misses with regard to his criticism of Clifford is the real world of men in which we live. Men are not so much rational animals as they are still at heart dogmatic beasts. Moreover, men have no problem whatsoever making leaps of faith or risking error. This is particularly true of those everyday matters of opinion-- religion, abortion, immigration, gun violence, the police, politics, justice, right or wrong, etc. No, men are quite willing to risk the error of being wrong because they feel certain they are right. Clifford is simply saying, 'Hold on here, let's not jump to conclusions on either side.'. He is saying the moral thing for us to do is to withhold our 'certain' judgment on controversial issues where we lack sufficient evidence. Of course, his battle is A LOST CAUSE -- just ask Socrates. Like Clifford, Socrates daily encountered the dogmatic beast of human belief (see Plato's Dialogues). Read 'Euthyphro', for example. Euthyphro is not just a character in one of Plato's Dialogues -- he is you and me ! In all honesty, we are much more like the dogmatic Euthyprho than we are like the rational Socrates. We feel certain of the justice of our cause, and it is this very certainty that motivates us to take courage, overcome our natural laziness, and to act purposefully -- if, not also unwisely. Yes, the wrong-doer must be brought to justice, and with our superior knowledge of right and wrong, our moral courage, and our inner-strength of will, we are just the one's to do it! No, pure rationality as a moral guide among men is definitely a LOST CAUSE. That's because that's not who we are -- we're not rational Vulcans, we're dogmatic beasts. Rationality for us is nothing more than a tool for survival, power, and control. Sure, Clifford went too far in his unrealistic demand that all our beliefs be based upon real evidence and rational justification -- rather than merely upon pride and prejudice. But the pride and prejudice of men's belief was never really endangered by Clifford -- only a mind like Socrates could do that... and that's the real reason why they put him to death. NOTE: The sin of Socrates was only slightly less evil in the eyes of men than asking men to actually forgive and to love their neighbors. Oh, these foolish martyrs, will they never learn !
That's a cool angle on the pursuit of truth and faith. I like it. I do think, however, that the inundation of access to knowledge complicates the truth seeker with a burdensome sense of homework. But apart from that, the point of belief and disbelief in God not being intellectual...I believe this.
You can arguably believe all religions as far as you can throw them, but better to make a choice in belief than be logically compelled to. Taking religion to the logical extreme, for example, a religion that worships an all-caring sky dad, can be easily warped to worship authority and oppression, as logical contradictions in the religion permit this. This is why you can't be logically compelled to believe, only choose to be. The same is true for miracles, real miracles are terrible things, metaphorical miracles are great things. This is why when you question the logical flaws in the Bible that people try to exploit, you generally lose faith in their God or the Bible's God, where any truly real God would be proud of you of questioning this.
@@avertingapathy3052 Actually yes! Because in order for empirical knowledge to grow, we first must accept paradoxes. Paradoxes show the limits of a model / paradigme and show us a possible next frontier.
@@BartekRoWa Right, so basically it's hard to glean principles. The fervor of "TruSt The SciENcE" people arguing for blind empiricism against those who are more cautious on principole in with new technology like mRNA is a pure example of this. 20 years of mRNA studies may not be anough for a rushed vaccine to know all the possible outcomes with almost no testing on the spicific drug considering the complexity of the human body, responses compared against FDA procedures and most studies being only a few months on psychotropic medications often the long-term consequnces are only found when it's used by a larger sample. Science is basically a methodology at best, but when put up against principles gleaned using reason and philosophy its empiricism by itself comes up short, as again merely a method not guaranteed to glean a capital T truth and vulnerable to political currents (the nature of research done).
@@avertingapathy3052 The problem is that we claim science is "the truth", even though it can only be a local truth. Empirical science is very expensive. Academic science is much cheaper. I.e. it is much cheaper to write a book referencing 40 physics experiments that others have performed, than to do the 40 experiments one self. The cost is: we need to trust out sources. But how long a chain of trust can we afford, before we go completely blind? There is something even cheaper: Dogmatic thinking, where we just trust it blindly. As long as the model holds, it works well and is extremely cheap. It outcompetes everything, until something changes and it stops working - but our blind trust makes us blind... and we have to suffer in order to notice that something is wrong. It is kind of ironic that we can use empirical studies to transform empirical studies into dogma (be our studies showed dogma was more efficient in our local context). And it is even more ironic that to avoid this, we need to stop these empirical studies by replacing then with... Guess what... dogma that these studies are bad. It's a paradox that we can't simply get out of, because we don't know how.
@@BartekRoWa Thanks for a thorough explanation. Incredibly well put. At least individuals we can hope some past experience and instincts other heuristics can guide, as a society things aren't looking good.
I believe that nature/God has no will in it, there’re rules/laws but not a will. But I believe when we die we will go back to be what we are before we were born. Sensation,feeling rational,space and time is all about being human. When we die we stop being human so those things are not matter anymore.Thus I can be at peace about my inevitable death without believing in a willing God.
So William James would encourage someone to take a leap of faith and believe something like Stoicism *if* it results in benefit? Or have I misunderstood?
In defense of Clifford, he is making a moral point about belief and our duty to question our own beliefs --- a very Socratic, indeed, philosophical thing to do. Clifford, like Socrates, thinks it is immoral simply to believe something without ever trying to justify it or find any evidence for it. But James has a point, when he says that we can't know everything with absolute certainty in life, and that living involves taking risks -- some things will always be a matter of faith. Surely, there is a middle-ground here between reason and faith. Whether you will believe or won't believe, you will in most cases believe one way or the other -- the Skeptics are foolhardy to suppose we can just suspend all our beliefs forever -- an intellectual position akin to Buridan's ass. No, life sometimes requires risk, and risk requires a certain amount of faith. Nonetheless, it is dogmatic to close one's mind forever on any matter. The spirit of philosophy is always to keep an open mind, to study, search and investigate as much as possible, and to always question and attempt to justify (or refute) one's own beliefs. Philosophy says be neither a dogmatist nor a skeptic, believe what you must, but always be ready to question it whenever possible, in order to continuously strive for reaching a more enlightened position that is proper to a man that professes to love wisdom.
But surely James misses Pascal's larger point. Like James, Pascal is defending the reasonableness of faith in the absence of any conclusive evidence that God does not exist. It might be a dead option for a non-Catholic to accept or reject decrees from the Vatican, but belief in God is only a dead option for a dogmatic atheist. Pascal's 'Wager' is in fact a more rational way to view the situation of faith versus atheism than simply a 'will to believe' based upon prejudice, emotion, volition, passionate nature, etc. -- what the heck is that, James ? What is rational about simply believing what you want to believe ?
I have a 6 page analysis essay due in an hour over William James and W.K Clifford. I’m very much struggling I have 2 pages done. I’m keep re reading the articles T__T
Aren't religions intelligible enough, insofar as some were invented before or after others, that one could discern that faith in even major religions would have grounds to not "believe" in them?
Also, I'd have to read the text to verify this, but I would wonder if anyone offhand knew if having a living hypothesis was a prerequisite before discerning if the matter was capable of intelligible reasoning or not...?
For your first question, I think James might consider religious belief to be one of those questions that, while you can make certain arguments for, the overall question can never be fully verified while on earth and therefore would lead to an unending metaphysical debate. For your second question, I don't think having a living hypothesis is a requirement for something to have the ability to be dealt with on individual grounds, I didn't see him make a connection like that.
@@PhilosophyToons this is my issue with James' "Pragmatism" in this case, is it is not pragmatic in the least, the real world concequences that we can verify and observe can be disastrous for believing certain ideas, i.e. Nazi and fascistic beliefs with their obsession with a conspiracy often are not falsifiable and do not have evidence but believing just so you have a chance to see the truth has some very real consequences for people living here and now, similarly religion has been the excuse for many genocides over thousands of years. Looking for the truth without regard for concequences (which Clifford as you portrayed him seems to overemphasize) seems like a shortcoming of his philosophy
But what needs to be asked and answered is, why having faith works to see the truth in some cases, but not in others? I have faith that I can step-off this roof and fly through the air by flapping my arms. Why did I fall instead ? Did I not have enough faith, or was there some other reason -- like gravity. Imagine a fact that can only come into existence when you believe it. In most cases of this kind it is simply going to be because the realization of that fact depended upon your putting in your best effort to ensure it happening -- for example, you achieving a perfect 4.0 grade average. You needed to believe it was not only possible, but likely to happen, so long as you studied diligently and put in the hard work. But most things like gravity do not depend upon our having faith in them. They remain facts whether we believe in them or not. No amount of faith is going to make me fly by simply flapping my arms. Does seeing the 'truth' of God's existence depend upon having faith first ? If so, why? It can't be because his coming into existence depends upon my having faith in Him -- like with the 4.0 GPA. There must be some other reason, James. Is it because God won't like me until I first show that l like him ? Doesn't sound like God to me.
The problem with saying that it is ethically wrong to believe in things that are not based on evidence is that it pressuposes the existence of a ethics based on evidence. But it seems to me that there is no ethics that does not start from axiomatic presuppositions that don't have evidence for. The most famous person who defends the existence of an evidence-based ethics is Sam Harris and his argument basically goes like this: All sentient beings avoid suffering, Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate. But note that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, this argument would only be valid if we add the following premise: All sentient beings avoid suffering, We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid, Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate. But what is the evidence for the proposition "We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid"? If you accept it, you will already be believing something without having any evidence for.
@@rodolfo9916 Hi rodolpho. That question's best answered from the general philosophy called "pragmatism", and the personal philosophy called "self-interest". Where is the evidence your boss should pay you your salary this month? Or the government your welfare benefit? Ask the police, the fraud squad, your bank manager or any private "Credit-Check" company for evidence we should be honest and they'll tell you that civilization is impossible without honesty. I assume you have no trouble at all with people being honest with you, in fact you insist on it. What you're questioning is "why should you be honest with other people?" The answer is "reciprocity". "What you give is what you get", and "what goes round, comes round". (It used to be called "sowing and reaping"). With a few exceptions called "white lies" made necessary for reasons of social tact, honesty isn't simply an abstract moral subjectivism, it's a practical personal contract also used by other social species. If those chimpanzees being groomed don't in turn groom their groomers, the very fabric of chimp society will collapse.🦍🐒. It's the same for us. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 Could you make an argument for what you said, like: The government will punish you if you aren't honest. Therefore you should be honest.
@@rodolfo9916 Hi rodolpho. I assume you mean "punish", or possibly "publish". Sorry, I can't put it in a simple two statement syllogism, but Neitzsche did that when he claimed "if there's no God, there's no need to be good". Neitzsche died in a mental asylum. For me with a background in psychology/sociology it's more about who we choose to interact with. In the democracies we all have "freedom of association", which carries with it the freedom to disassociate from certain people if we wish. Once a person has a long-term reputation for dishonesty, they are avoided by all except other dishonest people, and even then it's often just a temporary cooperation to commit a crime. But dishonest people also have a feeble "code of honour among thieves", that they will not "snitch" or "grass" on each other. When even dishonest people actually honour honesty in matters practical to them, that really makes my case rather solid, wouldn't you say? Cheers, P.R.
Actually, you don't have to assume truth, just the possibility of truth. If I hear you are 'a toxic person' by means of overhearing gossip, for example, I don't have to assume it is true in order to see it. I can withhold judgment in this case, and then wait for real evidence, instead of relying upon mere hearsay. If I assume you are toxic without real evidence of your toxicity, then I am being prejudice against you, and this prejudice on my part will cloud my objectivity and cause me to interpret many -- if not all -- your actions with a prejudiced belief in your toxicity. For example, why did you bump into me at the office ? Was it an accident or are you trying to rudely bully me to get out of your way? If I assume you are toxic, I will be much more inclined to believe the latter. No, this kind of supposition of 'truth' is already too common a practice among men -- which only serves to bolster their unwarranted pride in themselves and their unjustified prejudice against others. (Politics is a perfect example of this kind of PREJUDICE.) This is not what need more of, James -- quite the reverse ! No, instead, we must keep an open mind. Assume only the possibility of its truth, then wait for more evidence. If you are truly toxic, then sooner rather than later it will show in your actions. Sure, it was an 'accident' the first time, but you did it again ?! Look for patterns of behavior, instead of relying upon prejudice to guide your judgments. Always think-out the various possibilities, instead of jumping to conclusions that appear to fit your narrative. Question your narrative: Why do you believe it ? What real evidence do you have for it ? What is another possible narrative that fits the same evidence? How much is my own pride invested in my narrative being proven right, or in its being proven wrong ?
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith in what? His written Word. Man says prove it to me and then I will believe. God says in His word, believe what I say on faith, and then I will prove it to you.
The thesis also work to not believe in god... you can also be wrong.. you cd start with assumption. And it is better as the assumptions actually has better back ups.. But then again the step to not bring intellectual or intelligence does not work for me.
All religion can be summed up in man doing works or rituals to try and please God. But salvation is man admitting to God he is sinful and that he breaks God's law and in turn God offers that person the free gift of eternal life by believing Jesus died to release man from the penalty of sin. Religion can never save anyone, only being born again by faith in Jesus and His death.
If I said that I firmly believe magic pixies created the entire universe in six nanoseconds and rested on the seventh, would you believe me or simply dismiss it as silly nonsense. Well it's just as valid as any other silly claim that supernatural magic was somehow involved.
@TCL No faith is required to say 'we don't know' and if we were all honest with ourselves, we would all agree that we don't know how the universe originated.
Kant criticism. of nature's design comes to mind. Design does not Prove Prove that God exists so Ka t seems to believe that it provides no reason to believe in God. Kant does not seem to understand as James does that it provides a warrant for faith.
Fascinating!
I've always thought of a quote from Nietzsche that he sent to his sister after leaving behind his faith:
"If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire."
Peirce claims that all inquiry actually seeks nothing more than the overcoming of our doubts -- i.e. the settlement of belief, rather than the establishment of truth. For example, Peirce would claim that all Descartes was doing in his 'Meditations' was attempting to rationally exorcise his own doubts (and demons). While I am far from agreeing with Peirce on the nature of inquiry, I can't help but think how very often Nietzsche himself appeared to criticize the dispassionate search for truth, and even went so far as to question the ultimate value of truth itself.
Didn't he also say:
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted"?
I'm studying philosophy in university right now. In the first philosophy class I took, we read and discussed James, Pascal, and Clifford. You did an excellent job of summarizing all of them in this video.
Nice job Amy!
Philosophy is just someone's opinion, they form an opinion first then back peddle to formulate an argument supporting their opinion. That's why the Scientific Method was invented, to dismiss claims based solely on human psychology.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:50 *📜 William James's essay "The Will to Believe" explores faith, truth, risk, and evidence, aiming to justify belief in religious matters.*
02:14 *🤔 Options for James consist of two hypotheses: living or dead, forced or avoidable, and momentous or trivial.*
04:08 *🛣️ In the context of faith, a genuine option is one that is living, forced, and momentous.*
06:18 *🧠 James argues that our passionate nature, not just deliberate volitions, influences our beliefs, but these beliefs must still meet the criteria of genuine options.*
08:19 *🛑 James differentiates between knowing the truth and avoiding error, asserting that sometimes being wrong is necessary for pursuing truth.*
11:01 *🙏 Religion offers two main affirmations: eternal truths and present benefits, appealing to our passionate nature and desire for truth.*
12:38 *🎟️ James suggests that sometimes we need to make a leap of faith to discover truth, comparing it to buying a lottery ticket where belief opens the door to potential discovery.*
13:49 *🛕 James justifies religious faith based on individual cultural backgrounds and the notion of a "living hypothesis," implying different religions hold varying relevance based on personal experience.*
14:59 *🏔️ The lecture ends with a quote urging courage in the face of uncertainty, encapsulating the theme of embracing belief amidst life's uncertainties.*
Made with HARPA AI
Glad to find this channel
Thank you for making FDS class easier
I love William James he's someone that's always appealed to me and good to get a taster of him here! As ever great work and congrats on crossing the 2k!!
Thank you and glad you enjoyed it
Thank you so much!! The essay was hard for me to understand, its the first reading I was given in my intro to philosophy course in university. This video helped me get some good notes and actually comprehend the arguments lol...
Wonderfully put together. Near the end I began thinking he's speaking of hypothesis and the scientific method, but adding a requirement that intellectual diagnosis cannot be used. Someone makes an educated guess and studies or performs an experiment to test it. But to do the experiment you'd likely believe in some way that it's true (meeting halfway). Or at least that it's true that it will fail, giving credence to some other hypothesis.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched twice …… 13:20
Very interesting. Yet another banger, Mr. Amygdala.
Thanks man, appreciate it!
Thank you. I like the content and the graphics
In college this essay brought me closer to God.
Thanks so much. Sometimes I get burnt out on reading.
A good explanation to a weak argument, agnostics are, by definition, always open to new evidence, but the truth is provisional, which James seems to object to them being so that is he is suffers from confirmation bias.
In his mind choice has to start with belief. If an option is multi layered you can not force it, it's difficult to prove and so dead.
So the only option is to force multi layered thinking to the brink of choice. The point of failure that then becomes truth.
Yet.. are all options not truth to begin with? Is the only real failure in you and not the actual information? Progression in this comes from a weak fracture, a disbelief in all other truths. The inability to make sense out of too much information. A settlement that the structure one has already set up in belief hold the only answer to choice.
i encourage yall to believe in God (due to my experience, it has helped me become happier and more centered) but if you dont, i have to respect your opinion.
well thank u because I don't believe in god
What James' analysis misses with regard to his criticism of Clifford is the real world of men in which we live. Men are not so much rational animals as they are still at heart dogmatic beasts. Moreover, men have no problem whatsoever making leaps of faith or risking error. This is particularly true of those everyday matters of opinion-- religion, abortion, immigration, gun violence, the police, politics, justice, right or wrong, etc. No, men are quite willing to risk the error of being wrong because they feel certain they are right. Clifford is simply saying, 'Hold on here, let's not jump to conclusions on either side.'. He is saying the moral thing for us to do is to withhold our 'certain' judgment on controversial issues where we lack sufficient evidence. Of course, his battle is A LOST CAUSE -- just ask Socrates.
Like Clifford, Socrates daily encountered the dogmatic beast of human belief (see Plato's Dialogues). Read 'Euthyphro', for example. Euthyphro is not just a character in one of Plato's Dialogues -- he is you and me ! In all honesty, we are much more like the dogmatic Euthyprho than we are like the rational Socrates. We feel certain of the justice of our cause, and it is this very certainty that motivates us to take courage, overcome our natural laziness, and to act purposefully -- if, not also unwisely. Yes, the wrong-doer must be brought to justice, and with our superior knowledge of right and wrong, our moral courage, and our inner-strength of will, we are just the one's to do it!
No, pure rationality as a moral guide among men is definitely a LOST CAUSE. That's because that's not who we are -- we're not rational Vulcans, we're dogmatic beasts. Rationality for us is nothing more than a tool for survival, power, and control. Sure, Clifford went too far in his unrealistic demand that all our beliefs be based upon real evidence and rational justification -- rather than merely upon pride and prejudice. But the pride and prejudice of men's belief was never really endangered by Clifford -- only a mind like Socrates could do that... and that's the real reason why they put him to death.
NOTE: The sin of Socrates was only slightly less evil in the eyes of men than asking men to actually forgive and to love their neighbors.
Oh, these foolish martyrs, will they never learn !
That's a cool angle on the pursuit of truth and faith. I like it. I do think, however, that the inundation of access to knowledge complicates the truth seeker with a burdensome sense of homework. But apart from that, the point of belief and disbelief in God not being intellectual...I believe this.
You can arguably believe all religions as far as you can throw them, but better to make a choice in belief than be logically compelled to. Taking religion to the logical extreme, for example, a religion that worships an all-caring sky dad, can be easily warped to worship authority and oppression, as logical contradictions in the religion permit this. This is why you can't be logically compelled to believe, only choose to be. The same is true for miracles, real miracles are terrible things, metaphorical miracles are great things. This is why when you question the logical flaws in the Bible that people try to exploit, you generally lose faith in their God or the Bible's God, where any truly real God would be proud of you of questioning this.
B lind belief in the scientific method and empiricism also technically be illogical?
@@avertingapathy3052
Actually yes!
Because in order for empirical knowledge to grow, we first must accept paradoxes.
Paradoxes show the limits of a model / paradigme and show us a possible next frontier.
@@BartekRoWa Right, so basically it's hard to glean principles. The fervor of "TruSt The SciENcE" people arguing for blind empiricism against those who are more cautious on principole in with new technology like mRNA is a pure example of this. 20 years of mRNA studies may not be anough for a rushed vaccine to know all the possible outcomes with almost no testing on the spicific drug considering the complexity of the human body, responses compared against FDA procedures and most studies being only a few months on psychotropic medications often the long-term consequnces are only found when it's used by a larger sample. Science is basically a methodology at best, but when put up against principles gleaned using reason and philosophy its empiricism by itself comes up short, as again merely a method not guaranteed to glean a capital T truth and vulnerable to political currents (the nature of research done).
@@avertingapathy3052
The problem is that we claim science is "the truth", even though it can only be a local truth.
Empirical science is very expensive.
Academic science is much cheaper.
I.e. it is much cheaper to write a book referencing 40 physics experiments that others have performed, than to do the 40 experiments one self.
The cost is: we need to trust out sources. But how long a chain of trust can we afford, before we go completely blind?
There is something even cheaper: Dogmatic thinking, where we just trust it blindly.
As long as the model holds, it works well and is extremely cheap. It outcompetes everything, until something changes and it stops working - but our blind trust makes us blind... and we have to suffer in order to notice that something is wrong.
It is kind of ironic that we can use empirical studies to transform empirical studies into dogma (be our studies showed dogma was more efficient in our local context).
And it is even more ironic that to avoid this, we need to stop these empirical studies by replacing then with... Guess what... dogma that these studies are bad.
It's a paradox that we can't simply get out of, because we don't know how.
@@BartekRoWa Thanks for a thorough explanation. Incredibly well put. At least individuals we can hope some past experience and instincts other heuristics can guide, as a society things aren't looking good.
I believe that nature/God has no will in it, there’re rules/laws but not a will. But I believe when we die we will go back to be what we are before we were born. Sensation,feeling rational,space and time is all about being human. When we die we stop being human so those things are not matter anymore.Thus I can be at peace about my inevitable death without believing in a willing God.
So William James would encourage someone to take a leap of faith and believe something like Stoicism *if* it results in benefit? Or have I misunderstood?
In defense of Clifford, he is making a moral point about belief and our duty to question our own beliefs --- a very Socratic, indeed, philosophical thing to do. Clifford, like Socrates, thinks it is immoral simply to believe something without ever trying to justify it or find any evidence for it. But James has a point, when he says that we can't know everything with absolute certainty in life, and that living involves taking risks -- some things will always be a matter of faith. Surely, there is a middle-ground here between reason and faith. Whether you will believe or won't believe, you will in most cases believe one way or the other -- the Skeptics are foolhardy to suppose we can just suspend all our beliefs forever -- an intellectual position akin to Buridan's ass. No, life sometimes requires risk, and risk requires a certain amount of faith. Nonetheless, it is dogmatic to close one's mind forever on any matter. The spirit of philosophy is always to keep an open mind, to study, search and investigate as much as possible, and to always question and attempt to justify (or refute) one's own beliefs. Philosophy says be neither a dogmatist nor a skeptic, believe what you must, but always be ready to question it whenever possible, in order to continuously strive for reaching a more enlightened position that is proper to a man that professes to love wisdom.
But surely James misses Pascal's larger point. Like James, Pascal is defending the reasonableness of faith in the absence of any conclusive evidence that God does not exist. It might be a dead option for a non-Catholic to accept or reject decrees from the Vatican, but belief in God is only a dead option for a dogmatic atheist. Pascal's 'Wager' is in fact a more rational way to view the situation of faith versus atheism than simply a 'will to believe' based upon prejudice, emotion, volition, passionate nature, etc. -- what the heck is that, James ? What is rational about simply believing what you want to believe ?
That was very interesting.
Great video!
I have a 6 page analysis essay due in an hour over William James and W.K Clifford. I’m very much struggling I have 2 pages done. I’m keep re reading the articles T__T
Aren't religions intelligible enough, insofar as some were invented before or after others, that one could discern that faith in even major religions would have grounds to not "believe" in them?
Also, I'd have to read the text to verify this, but I would wonder if anyone offhand knew if having a living hypothesis was a prerequisite before discerning if the matter was capable of intelligible reasoning or not...?
No.
I will not elaborate.
For your first question, I think James might consider religious belief to be one of those questions that, while you can make certain arguments for, the overall question can never be fully verified while on earth and therefore would lead to an unending metaphysical debate. For your second question, I don't think having a living hypothesis is a requirement for something to have the ability to be dealt with on individual grounds, I didn't see him make a connection like that.
@@PhilosophyToons this is my issue with James' "Pragmatism" in this case, is it is not pragmatic in the least, the real world concequences that we can verify and observe can be disastrous for believing certain ideas, i.e. Nazi and fascistic beliefs with their obsession with a conspiracy often are not falsifiable and do not have evidence but believing just so you have a chance to see the truth has some very real consequences for people living here and now, similarly religion has been the excuse for many genocides over thousands of years. Looking for the truth without regard for concequences (which Clifford as you portrayed him seems to overemphasize) seems like a shortcoming of his philosophy
But what needs to be asked and answered is, why having faith works to see the truth in some cases, but not in others?
I have faith that I can step-off this roof and fly through the air by flapping my arms.
Why did I fall instead ? Did I not have enough faith, or was there some other reason -- like gravity.
Imagine a fact that can only come into existence when you believe it.
In most cases of this kind it is simply going to be because the realization of that fact depended upon your putting in your best effort to ensure it happening -- for example, you achieving a perfect 4.0 grade average. You needed to believe it was not only possible, but likely to happen, so long as you studied diligently and put in the hard work.
But most things like gravity do not depend upon our having faith in them. They remain facts whether we believe in them or not.
No amount of faith is going to make me fly by simply flapping my arms.
Does seeing the 'truth' of God's existence depend upon having faith first ?
If so, why? It can't be because his coming into existence depends upon my having faith in Him -- like with the 4.0 GPA.
There must be some other reason, James.
Is it because God won't like me until I first show that l like him ?
Doesn't sound like God to me.
The problem with saying that it is ethically wrong to believe in things that are not based on evidence is that it pressuposes the existence of a ethics based on evidence. But it seems to me that there is no ethics that does not start from axiomatic presuppositions that don't have evidence for.
The most famous person who defends the existence of an evidence-based ethics is Sam Harris and his argument basically goes like this:
All sentient beings avoid suffering,
Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate.
But note that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, this argument would only be valid if we add the following premise:
All sentient beings avoid suffering,
We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid,
Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate.
But what is the evidence for the proposition "We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid"? If you accept it, you will already be believing something without having any evidence for.
Hi. "Honesty" is an ethics based on real world evidence. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 What is the evidence that we should be honest?
@@rodolfo9916 Hi rodolpho. That question's best answered from the general philosophy called "pragmatism", and the personal philosophy called "self-interest". Where is the evidence your boss should pay you your salary this month? Or the government your welfare benefit? Ask the police, the fraud squad, your bank manager or any private "Credit-Check" company for evidence we should be honest and they'll tell you that civilization is impossible without honesty.
I assume you have no trouble at all with people being honest with you, in fact you insist on it. What you're questioning is "why should you be honest with other people?" The answer is "reciprocity". "What you give is what you get", and "what goes round, comes round". (It used to be called "sowing and reaping").
With a few exceptions called "white lies" made necessary for reasons of social tact, honesty isn't simply an abstract moral subjectivism, it's a practical personal contract also used by other social species. If those chimpanzees being groomed don't in turn groom their groomers, the very fabric of chimp society will collapse.🦍🐒. It's the same for us. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 Could you make an argument for what you said, like:
The government will punish you if you aren't honest.
Therefore you should be honest.
@@rodolfo9916 Hi rodolpho. I assume you mean "punish", or possibly "publish". Sorry, I can't put it in a simple two statement syllogism, but Neitzsche did that when he claimed "if there's no God, there's no need to be good". Neitzsche died in a mental asylum.
For me with a background in psychology/sociology it's more about who we choose to interact with. In the democracies we all have "freedom of association", which carries with it the freedom to disassociate from certain people if we wish. Once a person has a long-term reputation for dishonesty, they are avoided by all except other dishonest people, and even then it's often just a temporary cooperation to commit a crime.
But dishonest people also have a feeble "code of honour among thieves", that they will not "snitch" or "grass" on each other. When even dishonest people actually honour honesty in matters practical to them, that really makes my case rather solid, wouldn't you say? Cheers, P.R.
Actually, you don't have to assume truth, just the possibility of truth. If I hear you are 'a toxic person' by means of overhearing gossip, for example, I don't have to assume it is true in order to see it. I can withhold judgment in this case, and then wait for real evidence, instead of relying upon mere hearsay. If I assume you are toxic without real evidence of your toxicity, then I am being prejudice against you, and this prejudice on my part will cloud my objectivity and cause me to interpret many -- if not all -- your actions with a prejudiced belief in your toxicity. For example, why did you bump into me at the office ? Was it an accident or are you trying to rudely bully me to get out of your way? If I assume you are toxic, I will be much more inclined to believe the latter. No, this kind of supposition of 'truth' is already too common a practice among men -- which only serves to bolster their unwarranted pride in themselves and their unjustified prejudice against others. (Politics is a perfect example of this kind of PREJUDICE.) This is not what need more of, James -- quite the reverse ! No, instead, we must keep an open mind. Assume only the possibility of its truth, then wait for more evidence. If you are truly toxic, then sooner rather than later it will show in your actions. Sure, it was an 'accident' the first time, but you did it again ?! Look for patterns of behavior, instead of relying upon prejudice to guide your judgments. Always think-out the various possibilities, instead of jumping to conclusions that appear to fit your narrative. Question your narrative: Why do you believe it ? What real evidence do you have for it ? What is another possible narrative that fits the same evidence? How much is my own pride invested in my narrative being proven right, or in its being proven wrong ?
Happy 4th of july!
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith in what? His written Word. Man says prove it to me and then I will believe. God says in His word, believe what I say on faith, and then I will prove it to you.
The thesis also work to not believe in god... you can also be wrong.. you cd start with assumption.
And it is better as the assumptions actually has better back ups..
But then again the step to not bring intellectual or intelligence does not work for me.
Your background music is very creepy seems like a woman is screaming around 8:30 onwards
All religion can be summed up in man doing works or rituals to try and please God. But salvation is man admitting to God he is sinful and that he breaks God's law and in turn God offers that person the free gift of eternal life by believing Jesus died to release man from the penalty of sin. Religion can never save anyone, only being born again by faith in Jesus and His death.
Hi John. If true, that sanctifies Jesus, but it also sanctifies death and Satan, without which Jesus couldn't "die" for our sins. Cheers, P.R.
If I said that I firmly believe magic pixies created the entire universe in six nanoseconds and rested on the seventh, would you believe me or simply dismiss it as silly nonsense. Well it's just as valid as any other silly claim that supernatural magic was somehow involved.
@TCL No faith is required to say 'we don't know' and if we were all honest with ourselves, we would all agree that we don't know how the universe originated.
Hi groovy one. Yes, HONESTY, the morally active arm of truth. Cheers, P.R.@@groovyone5492
Kant criticism. of nature's design comes to mind. Design does not Prove Prove that God exists so Ka t seems to believe that it provides no reason to believe in God. Kant does not seem to understand as James does that it provides a warrant for faith.
Struggle
it's simple, we all don't know we're the universe came from and no one can prove itthat's it, end of discussions.