William James vs. Immanuel Kant

[Spiritual Leo]

In William James's lecture, 'The Reality of the Unseen,' he presents an argument which clearly declares that humans naturally have a tendency to find unseen realities more real than concrete realities. As James begins his lecture, he discusses some of the psychological peculiarities that associate with the belief of objects that we cannot see. As he furthers his argument, he informs us that, "All our attitudes, moral, practical, or emotional, as well as religious, are due to the "objects" of our consciousness, the things which we believe to exist, whether really or ideally, along with our-selves(James,61)." From this we can understand that people can believe in an abstract thought just as strong as they can believe in something concrete. A memory of an experience, for example, whether good or bad, often brings more feeling to the individual then the experience itself. He furthers his argument by presenting a variety of different beliefs, experiences, and objects, but let us begin with Immanuel Kant's doctrine before we go into any further detail.

Immanuel Kant holds a different view on the subject which objects what William James is presenting to us. Kant's belief is that beliefs of God, after-life, and the soul are just objects without knowledge. In fact, he believed that words like God, after-life, and soul offer nothing significant. I disagree with mister Kant on this one.

I don't have much time to type, so I will end with a small paragraph.

Throughout the argument, it becomes clear, to me, that all people have abstract thoughts and without abstract thoughts, we couldn't conceive of anything to be beautiful, significant, or just. Clearly, then, abstractions are needed to conceive of anything, whether it be real or ideal.


In my first year of college, I wrote a long ass paper about this and ended up pulling off the A in the course, but I'd like to here some feedback from some INFJ'S instead of my professor. This is more like a summary because I can't seem to find the paper, but I still have the book. The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.


Thank you-

Enjoy your Easter tomorrow

 

[invisible]

the philosophy i have read was very limited to my study of english literature and doesn't extend to the complex things you are writing about. but i do agree what what you are writing about.

someone once tried to explain to me part of kant's philosophy on the experience of art, that the intellectual appreciation of art is separate from the emotional experience of it, and we are not capable of doing both at once. my answer was, what about the design student who experiences emotionally the beauty of a design with a lot of intellectual work behind it, for that reason? gosh. i just don't think emotions are that separate from thoughts.

enjoy your weekend too.

 

[Spiritual Leo]

Well you raised a good question to that... I personally believe that you have the better view on that..


James clearly states that, “the simplest rudiment of mystical experience would seem to be that deepened sense of significance of a maxim or formula which occasionally sweeps over one (James, 416).” From this we can understand that something as simple as listening to music or reading a book can cause a person to feel a deepened sense of significance. Clearly, this would be the simplest of mystical experiences, but a feeling like this is still ineffable.

I actually wrote about William James again last week.... That has to deal with mysticism, but still somewhat relevant to your post...
Good reply
Take Care

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Just read some damn Schopenhauer.

 

[Spiritual Leo]

Just read some damn Schopenhauer.

"The inexpressible depth of music, so easy to understand and yet so inexplicable, is due to the fact that it reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain

 

[bronson_]

"The amount of noise which anyone can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Awww yeah! I'll just take it to be true.

 

[Faye]

I can't help but say that you are completely straw-manning Kant.

 

[Spiritual Leo]

I can't help but say that you are completely straw-manning Kant.

In the original paper, I was kinder to the reader. . . I usually show respect to those who object my view in my writing, but you made a good point... I didn't mean to offend

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.
Friedrich Nietzsche

​