Existence: What the fuck is going on?

[Jackalope]

I've got to agree, Nestor. Whoever said that apparently had only a veneer-thin understanding of what existentialism is.

[Pyrrho]

... Anyway, you can definitely see William James' sympathetic attitudes towards the mystical experience as he devoted a phenomenal lecture series to it that was shortly afterwards published in 1902 as "The Varieties of Religious Experience."

I have much respect for James' approach to theism though I don't find much appeal in it for myself.

I have no respect for James' approach to theism. He was quite happy telling people to have faith and believe bullshit if they wanted to. His famous essay "The Will to Believe" deals with this. You can read it, as well as the sort of thing to which it is a response (Clifford's essay at link), as well why James' thinking on this is crap (Burger's essay at link), at:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

James is not only wrong, but following his advice is a danger to society. One might murder someone from following his advice. Read the above to see why, though it should be obvious enough from the fact that religions are frequently advocating the murder of infidels and such.

Given that "The Will to Believe" is one of his most popular essays, I think the world would be a better place if William James had never been born.

[Mudhammam]

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

James is not only wrong, but following his advice is a danger to society.  One might murder someone from following his advice.  Read the above to see why, though it should be obvious enough from the fact that religions are frequently advocating the murder of infidels and such.

I have that essay in a compilation of his earlier work, but I haven't read it yet. I have, however, read all of his writings from 1902 until his death (1910), and that's a rather simplistic understanding of his philosophy. I recommend you read A Pluralistic Universe or The Varieties of Religious Experience for a fuller understanding of his views. Keep in mind he was a "radical empiricist." And this statement, I'm sorry to say, is just dumb:

"The Will to Believe" is one of his most popular essays, I think the world would be a better place if William James had never been born."

Aside from being an innovative philosopher, he was also one of most important figures in the development of psychology. 

[Pizza]

The kind of passages just noted may lend support to Bertrand Russell's famous objection that James is committed to the truth of ‘Santa Claus exists’ (Russell 1949: 772). This is unfair; at best, James is committed to the claim that the happiness that belief in Santa Claus provides is truth-relevant. James could say that the belief was ‘good for so much’ but it would only be ‘wholly true’ if it did not ‘clash with other vital benefits’. It is easy to see that, unless it is somehow insulated from the broader effects of acting upon it, belief in Santa Claus could lead to a host of experiential surprises and disappointments.

[Mudhammam]

Nice. James also, as far as I understand, only advocated "the will" or "the right" to believe in instances where the intellect cannot decide which option is more correct (I don't agree here anyway, btw), and while I haven't read his lecture specifically concerned with "the moral life," I'm pretty sure he wouldn't include an act of murder in the class of propositions of which we have insufficient data to determine its value or correctness, or lack thereof.

[Pizza]

I think James' point was people have the right to believe whatever they wanted in cases that haven't and wouldn't be solved. Like believing you're not a brain in a vat even if you and "experts" can't prove it so because nobody can.

[GrandizerII]

Given that "The Will to Believe" is one of his most popular essays, I think the world would be a better place if William James had never been born.

FTR, William James was one of the founding fathers of modern psychology.

Gee, some views here can get a little too extreme ...

[bennyboy]

As I recall, James was a subjectivist-- he felt the best way to understand the mind was to examine one's own flow of consciousness. This would place him as pretty woo by scientific standards, but pretty high in my book. I'd place him at a diametric opposite to B.F.Skinner, in which the mechanism of mind is irrelevant so long as you can figure out how to manipulate the external behaviors of an organism (or person).

[Pizza]

Not quite since he was a functionalist. He just thought you couldn't hand wave away consciousness like behavioralists did.

[Pyrrho]

Nice. James also, as far as I understand, only advocated "the will" or "the right" to believe in instances where the intellect cannot decide which option is more correct (I don't agree here anyway, btw), and while I haven't read his lecture specifically concerned with "the moral life," I'm pretty sure he wouldn't include an act of murder in the class of propositions of which we have insufficient data to determine its value or correctness, or lack thereof.

You need to read the essays at the link.  His position most certainly does lead to the potential to believe things that lead to murder.  Indeed, the whole point of his essay "The Will to Believe" is to allow people to believe in Christianity, even with no evidence.  And, as everyone knows who has any knowledge of the history of Christianity, people have killed each other over such things, based on the beliefs that they had on faith.

Read the essays, and you will see.