I'm reading William James' thesis on belief for my philosophy unit. He's basically rebutting what Clifford writes on belief; that it is always wrong to believe with insufficient evidence. The thing is though, I've come to this paragraph and for some reason I just cannot make sense of it:
The talk of believing by our volition seems, then, from one point of view, simply
silly. From another point of view it is worse than silly, it is vile. When one turns to
the magnificent edifice of the physical sciences, and sees how it was reared; what
thousands of disinterested moral lives of men lie buried in its mere foundations;
what patience and postponement, what choking down of preference, what
submission to the icy laws of outer fact are wrought into its very stones and mortar;
how absolutely impersonal it stands in its vast augustness,--then how besotted and
contemptible seems every little sentimentalist who comes blowing his voluntary
smoke-wreaths, and pretending to decide things from out of his private dream! Can
we wonder if those bred in the rugged and manly school of science should feel like
spewing such subjectivism out of their mouths? The whole system of loyalties
which grow up in the schools of science go dead against its toleration; so that it is
only natural that those who have caught the scientific fever should pass over to the
opposite extreme, and write sometimes as if the incorruptibly truthful intellect
ought positively to prefer bitterness and unacceptableness to the heart in its cup.
I don't know if I can't understand it because from what I do gather about it I heavily disagree on, or if it's simply absolute nonsense because it seems like he doesn't understand the scientific method to begin with. Either way, it would be most appreciated if someone was willing to decode the point he's trying to make, please and thank you!
The talk of believing by our volition seems, then, from one point of view, simply
silly. From another point of view it is worse than silly, it is vile. When one turns to
the magnificent edifice of the physical sciences, and sees how it was reared; what
thousands of disinterested moral lives of men lie buried in its mere foundations;
what patience and postponement, what choking down of preference, what
submission to the icy laws of outer fact are wrought into its very stones and mortar;
how absolutely impersonal it stands in its vast augustness,--then how besotted and
contemptible seems every little sentimentalist who comes blowing his voluntary
smoke-wreaths, and pretending to decide things from out of his private dream! Can
we wonder if those bred in the rugged and manly school of science should feel like
spewing such subjectivism out of their mouths? The whole system of loyalties
which grow up in the schools of science go dead against its toleration; so that it is
only natural that those who have caught the scientific fever should pass over to the
opposite extreme, and write sometimes as if the incorruptibly truthful intellect
ought positively to prefer bitterness and unacceptableness to the heart in its cup.
I don't know if I can't understand it because from what I do gather about it I heavily disagree on, or if it's simply absolute nonsense because it seems like he doesn't understand the scientific method to begin with. Either way, it would be most appreciated if someone was willing to decode the point he's trying to make, please and thank you!
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
