Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking

Where does James see himself within the “tender-minded”/“tough-minded” divide? How does this relate to his advocacy of pragmatism?

James argues that human temperament influences the philosophical positions we take. If this is the case, then how does pragmatist theory explain how we can arrive at truth instead of merely our emotional preferences?

James argues that pragmatism is a method, not a set of absolute principles. Does pragmatism possess any core principles? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

Why does James reject the traditional idea of the Absolute? How does he square this rejection with pragmatism’s treatment of the question of the existence of God?

Discuss James’s rhetorical techniques: using casual, accessible language, illustrating his arguments with analogies from regular life, preemptively refuting critics, and so on. What do these rhetorical strategies accomplish?

According to James, what is common sense and why must it be transcended? Why is it an appealing starting place for his philosophy?

The most trenchant critique of pragmatism is that it means relativism, or even making things up as you go along. How does James respond to this criticism?

Research one of the philosophers James sees as the forebears or anticipators of pragmatism. How does his work compare to James’s?