Sunday, August 24, 2008

I was studying for an AP psych test (btw, Mrs. Fritz is SO cool) when I came across the psychologist William James who devoted a great deal of his time researching and writing on the topics we have recently been discussing in TOK.....I did a little googling and found some key quotes from two of his most famous written works "Pragmatism" and "The Meaning of Truth". In "The Meaning of Truth", James emphasizes that for something to be true, it must not only be belived but also must "conform to reality". However, he draws a clear distinction between truth and fact in "Pragmatism": "Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are" (p. 108). I think this is an interesting point to make; I interpret his words as meaning that truth is subjective while facts are objective. And although truths are subjective, they often contribute to the objectivity by revealing more facts....which hurts my head a little bit to think about, but i think that makes sense. In "Pragmatism", James also deals with truth and it's applicability. Perhaps this quote best outlines the sentiments of some people in our TOK class: "Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms" (p. 97)? Although seeking truth and seeking to define truth is a task James sought to perform daily in one way or another, he too became frustrated and unable to provide a simple definition for truth and its pertinence to his life. Perhaps his pragmatic views contributed to his percieved cynicism about the topic, however, if finding truth is so unimportant, why would he have spent time writing a book proving its unimportance?

1 comment:

Magister P said...

You write, "however, if finding truth is so unimportant, why would he have spent time writing a book proving its unimportance?"

Indeed! And does this not, in and of itself, suggest that those claiming there is no objective truth nevertheless live their lives as if there were?