William James Pragmatism

In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.

When choosing a vehicle that would get you from one place to another, would you not choose the better alternative? In discussions of vehicular transportation, one controversial issue has been whether or not people should use electric cars or gas powered cars. On one hand, others contend that people should not use gas powered cars over electric cars.On the other hand, people argue that gas powered cars should be used over electric cars People should use electric cars because they are better for the environment, are cheaper and the government provides better incentives than gas powered cars.

From here on, I am going to illustrate my lifestyle in a rural area versus a well developed city. I came from a small village in China. Walking to places has been build on me since I was a little kid; it was one of my habit. Back in the days, nothing seems handy to own. I remembered it was indeed hard to own a small motorcycle, not to speak of cars. On account of that, I treasure walking gratefully. I can walk to my school, relative's house, convenient stores, as well as markets for food. That has been my lifestyle for ten years until I came to the United States. My lifestyle has changed from walking to commuting through buses. San Francisco is a fairly developed city. We can access to every part of SF through muni, and the buses come in very often. Gradually, I start taking the bus to school, to hangouts with friends, and restaurants. I don’t remember when but I started to feel and think buses are so convenient. I rely on buses so much that I became surprisingly lazy. I would choose to take the bus even when the destination is

In this paper I will defend W.T. Stace’s position of compatibilism in respect to the problem of free will, as presented in Religion and the Modern Mind. I will explain Stace’s position on how free will and casual determinism are compatible. I will consider the following two objections against Stace’s position of free will: compatibilism is too weak a notion of free will that it conflicts with determinism, and there is no real difference between free and constrained action.

Every single day I have to ride my bicycle throughout the city of Miami. The perks I would say is that it is safer for the environment by causing less pollution in the air and I get a good cardio workout every day. The negative outcome of not having a car however is that I almost get hit or what feels like killed every other hour on the street. But how the person perceives this situation is really what is at hand. I take the time every once in a while and stop near a park or by a lake and just admire nature in its vast beauty and how truly wonderful it is to be alive, most people do not see how much of a blessing it is to just wake up every single day and being healthy. Having to worry about the weather is another issue that I have to be constantly worrying about, but thankfully at the end of the day it is just a little rain, unless it is a tremendous storm which dramatically increases my chance of being killed while riding my bike.

Stace, Frankfurt, and Wolf are all compatibilists. They hold that free will and determinism are compatible. In this paper, first I will define and explain key terms determinism, free will, and compatibilism. Next, I will discuss the individual views of each compatibilist and how they object to parts of determinism; then compare and contrast their views. They all believe in parts of determinism and parts of free will, even though determinism holds we are not morally responsible and free will holds we are morally responsible; thus, they are technically incompatible. This concept will be explained in this paper.

In this paper, I hope to effectively summarize W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument on the ethics of belief, followed by a summary of William James’ (1897) argument on the right to believe, and finally, provide an argument for why W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger by highlighting its strengths while simultaneously arguing against William James’ (1897) argument.

William James explains his position on religious belief by relating his idea to that of Pascal’s. He does think that is reasonable to believe in God without evidence, but not based on Pascal’s wager which is to base your belief on cost-benefit analysis; James thinks this is wrong because it is not live. James does think it is permissible to believe without evidence when we have a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds. That is when our passional nature takes over and decides the matter. James states how when he is explaining passional nature he means “all factors of belief as ear and hope, prejudice and passion, imitation and partisanship, the circumpressure of our caste and set,” and then says that when we find ourselves believing we don’t know how or why. James begins his paper by explaining is stance on belief by writing that anything that may be proposed to our belief is a hypothesis. He goes on to explain that the decision of two hypotheses is an option. There are several options: living if both possibilities appeal as real possibilities for the agent, forced if it is unavoidable, and momentous if it is not trivial. He states that religion is a momentous option, and that “we are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose by our non-belief, a certain vital good.” He then goes on to say that religion is also a forced option; we cannot remain skeptical and wait for a greater evidence to believe. However, he does say that

In his lecture, “The Will to Believe,” William James addresses how one adopts a belief. There is a hypothesis and an option, where you choose between two live hypotheses. An option has the characteristics to be live or dead, forced or avoidable, and momentous or trivial. In his thesis, James argues how “our passional nature” must make our decisions about our beliefs when they cannot be certainly determined on “intellectual grounds,” however, this is not the case, we can always make the decision based on intellectual grounds. One can use Bayesian probability to gain some grasp of the situation and eventually to make a decision.

William James was an American psychiatrist and philosopher, born in 1842 and touted as the leader of the philosophical movement of Pragmatism and of the psychological movement of functionalism (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). James’ rebuttal to the Clifford’s Ethics of Believe, was the famed Will to Believe.

William James was an American philosopher and psychologist who specialized in Pragmatism and philosophy related to such. He led a philosophical revolution in the USA and would make the philosophy known as ¨Pragmatism" very well known. In his book ¨The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy", William explains different philosophical beliefs while also challenging them and supporting the right to believe in a religion or even life itself. William James' style of writing is more Expository mainly due to his explanation of different philosophies/religions but showing pros and cons of many different philosophies.

Pragmatism is described in the book as a method for settling philosophical disputes. It is based on the pragmatic theory of truth. This theory says that a 'proposition p is true if and only if the belief that 'p is true' works'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). In order

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third

Currently, three prominent ideologies dominate the governing style of the world today: socialism, liberalism and conservatism. Many political groups and leaders often follow or claim to follow a specific ideology. On the other side of the spectrum for those who follow one ideology specific, there are some individuals that knowingly or unknowingly that follow none and focus on practicality of ideas. Those individuals are referred to as pragmatist. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, pragmatism is based on the principle that emphasis on the usefulness, workability, and practicality of ideas, policies, and proposals (“Pragmatism”, n.d). Basically, a pragmatist would focus on the actions and/or the consequences rather than the doctrine. Even

Some people believe that the benefits of the automobile far outweigh the consequences. These people