In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 “The Will to Believe” Policing versus Free-Roaming The Sentiment of Rationality In 1879 and 1882, James published two parts of articles that collectively would become known as “The Sentiment of Rationality.” It is remarkable how much this early text anticipates his more mature and even his final positions in philosophy . He begins by looking over various conceptualizations of the universe and noting that, while some people seek out similarities, others seek out differences in providing descriptions. This became the notorious issue of “the one and the many,” which James later called the most important problem in philosophy. Here he quickly moves on, telling the reader that “the only possible philosophy must be a compromise between an abstract monotony and a concrete heterogeneity.”1 But he quickly concluded from this that pluralism is necessary, that “none of our explanations are complete.” A completed explanation is always perspectival and also incomplete. “In a word, so far as A and B contain l,m,n, and o,p,q respectively, in addition to x, they are not explained by x. . . . A single explanation of a fact only explains it from a single point of view” (WB, 60). Going further, conceptualizations are teleological in nature. We see things from a particular point of view for a particular purpose. Hence, certainty is not possible. But neither is it desirable. Suppose, he says, the goal of certainty was attained. “Our mind is so wedded to the process of seeing an other beside every item of its experience, that when the notion of an absolute datum is presented to it, it goes “The Will to Believe” 11 through its usual procedure and remains pointing at the void beyond . . .” (WB, 63). James terms this “ontological wonder-sickness” (ibid.), a disease for which there is no cure, or for which the “cure” is worse than the disease itself. When all is said and done, “the notion of a possible other than the actual may still haunt our imagination and prey upon our system. The bottom of being is logically opaque to us” (ibid., 64). Furthermore, this situation will never be solved or done away with. “Every generation will produce its Job, its Hamlet, its Faust.” The world is “overdetermined ,” to use Freud’s term in a different context, and “there is nothing improbable in the supposition that an analysis of the world may yield a number of formulae, all consistent with the facts” (ibid., 66). Given that we cannot logically “solve” the issue of which conceptualization of the universe is correct, what do we do? For we must, James claims, do something. We pick, James claims, one conception of the universe over the others for “sentimental ” reasons. It is not a matter of rejecting logic and empirical data but rather of what to do after these have been used. James claims that there are two types of theories that we will not accept—for sentimental reasons. We will not accept a completely pessimistic theory, and we will not accept an outlook that does not give us at least a small role to play in life: A philosophy may be unimpeachable in other respects but either of two defects will be fatal to its universal acceptance. First, its ultimate principle must not be one that essentially baffles and disappoints our dearest desires and most cherished powers. . . . But a second and worse defect in a philosophy than that of contradicting our active propensities is to give them no object whatever to press against. Better face the enemy than the eternal void! (WB, 70–71) James argues forcefully for this position, but there is no way that he can “prove” it completely. Indeed, given the title of the essay, calling for or assuming the attainment of such proof would constitute a contradiction in terms. Rather, one must have “faith” in one paradigm or outlook over the others: “Faith means belief in something concerning which doubt is still theoretically possible; and as the test of belief is willingness to act, one may say that faith is the readiness to act in a cause the prosperous issue of which is not certified to us in advance” (WB, 76). Faith, then, involves risk; it is akin to moral courage, as in facing death; it lends itself to living life intensely. Furthermore, it is intergenerational, and the outcome will not be known until the last person has had her say. Struggle as we may, we are caught in a situation where “the only escape...

Share