Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking

In this lecture, James illustrates how the pragmatic method can be applied to metaphysics. As a traditional branch of philosophy, metaphysics deals with fundamental principles such as being, existence, the nature of reality, etc. In popular usage, the word also tends to denote the more abstract or even abstruse side of philosophy. Here James engages with concepts that philosophers going back to the medieval Scholastics, and before that to Aristotle and other ancient Greek thinkers, have grappled with. He shows how pragmatism connects with these classical philosophical concerns and emphasizes the questions’ relevance for present-day debates.

First, James takes up the traditional metaphysical concept of substance. He explores how this concept relates to the question of materialism versus theism as rival explanations for how the world came to be.

Medieval Scholastic philosophy distinguished between substance—a term that denotes a thing—and attribute, which is quality inherent to the substance. For example, the attribute of hardness of a desk is inherent to its substance—wood. The philosophical thread goes on to argue that we can really only know attributes; our knowledge of substances derives from their attributes. Thus, only attributes have cash-value, or practicality—a key pragmatist idea (see Index of Terms for an explanation of cash-value).

James examines historical examples of how various thinkers treated the idea of substance pragmatically to show that pragmatism has an established history and applications in philosophy.

In the Middle Ages, Scholastic thinkers applied the question of substance to the Christian sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Here the concept of substance had distinct practical consequences, in that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were believed to change substance, becoming the body and blood of Christ while retaining the same attributes.

However, 18th century philosopher David Hume followed 17th century English philosopher John Locke in critiquing the idea of spiritual substance, moving gradually in the direction of overt materialism, or naturalism. In materialist thinking, God and the soul do not exist; all things are explained as the results of “blind physical forces” (37) because matter is the ultimate reality. This view is opposed to theism or spiritualism, which says that the universe is guided by intelligent purpose. Saying that matter is the ultimate reality is not as harsh as it sounds—the 19th century scientific philosopher Herbert Spencer argued that matter is filled with beauty, even suggesting that we should think of matter as the same as God. Yet the materialist philosophy fails the pragmatic test because of its pessimism: At the end of our lives, and finally at the end of time, our bodies and all material reality will turn to dust and all consciousness will be extinguished. Thus, in the materialist worldview, the ultimate destiny of all things is “death and tragedy” (40).

By contrast, theism posits that because of God’s providence, there is hope for the future for human beings and the universe as a whole. Theism thus satisfies our need for an “eternal moral order” that “shall be permanently preserved” (41). By giving us a better practical result, theism passes the pragmatic test. James emphasizes that the pragmatic value of theism does not lie in its positing that God created the universe. What has pragmatic value is what theism says about the ultimate end and destiny of the universe. This is because, as James argues, philosophy is not merely retrospective, or concerned with explaining how things began, but also prospective,, or interested in future consequences, asking, “what does the world promise?” (39). Another advantage of theism is that it justifies our “joyous, careless, trustful” (42) belief in a God, assuring us that a higher power is in control of the world and relieving us from the burden of believing we have responsibility for everything.

Next James examines the related question of design in nature. At one time, philosophers felt secure that the intricate configuration of various things in nature implied the existence of an intelligent Creator. Although the theories of Darwin have somewhat weakened these arguments, theologians have been able to accommodate Darwin’s discoveries to theorize a divinity working through evolutionary mechanisms. However, as our knowledge of nature has further expanded so that the universe now seems stupendously complex, the question becomes: “What sort of design? And what sort of designer?” (44). Here again, the pragmatic method dictates that the theory of design is to be preferred, not because it explains how the universe came to be, but because it is a “term of promise” that inspires “confidence in the future” (44).

The final metaphysical question James examines is that of free will. We should believe in free will because it increases man’s dignity, whereas determinism diminishes man by making him merely a cog in the machinery of causes that make up the universe (as was common in James’s time, he uses the word “man” and the male pronoun to refer to human beings in general). The pragmatic value of the theory of free will is that it ensures “novelties in the world” (46)—the promise that the future will not simply repeat the past, but that there will be progress in the universe. Just like theism and design, free will is a “cosmological theory of promise” and a “doctrine of relief” (46) from natural processes.

To conclude, James emphasizes that in every case, the mere abstract definition of a philosophical idea has no meaning in itself. What really matters is how the idea works itself out in the real world and in our lives. This is the pragmatic approach to philosophy. According to James, the real pragmatic significance of all the ideas discussed in this lecture can be summed up as: “God’s in his heaven; all’s right with the world!” (47).

A common criticism of pragmatism is that it looks only at immediate practical utility. However, this is not true; on the contrary, pragmatism “dwells just as much upon the world’s remotest perspectives,” asking such questions as “What is this world going to be? What is life eventually to make of itself?” (47). In doing so, pragmatism treats facts as more important than abstractions, and the ultimate destiny of things as more important than their origins.

James forecasts the effect of adopting pragmatism: “The centre of gravity of philosophy must therefore alter its place” (47). In saying this, James is using the pragmatic method even as he is describing its principles—as a pragmatist, James is interested in the practical effects that his philosophy will have. He is writing the book not as a disinterested observer but as a passionate proponent of his philosophy, so he looks forward to the day when it will become dominant. James compares the coming of pragmatism to the Protestant Reformation, suggesting that James views pragmatism as a revolutionary philosophy.