Indeterminism Lead To Again James example essay topic

Dilemma of Determinism Determinism, in effect, pictures a "block universe", one where part decrees part. This is a universe of necessity and impossibility everything is either necessary or impossible. There is no real possibility. Indeterminism takes the view, instead, that the possibilities outnumber the actualities that there are real possibilities. The decision between determinism and indeterminism cannot be made on the basis of fact. It's not an issue of fact.

[That is, neither can be proved in any scientific way.] In making the decision, we are depending on what feels most rational to us, after careful consideration that is, we are depending on "the sentiment [i.e. feeling] of rationality". To some people, indeterminism feels irrational, but James says this is because they have not thought through carefully enough what indeterminism really involves. Those people think of "chance", the indeterminate, as being irrational, and that feels negative. But James takes the attitude that chance is something positive, that to say "X occurs by chance" is to say "X occurs as a gift". Of course, some people may be afraid to admit to the reality of chance, because what chance comes down to is this: there is no total control over what happens. James begins with a fact: Some events happen which we feel are bad, even atrocious, horrible, and we react with feelings of "regret".

For example, a grisly murder fills us with feelings of sadness, horror, pity all of which James would include in the term "regret". Suppose that murder was determined i.e. that it happened necessarily; there's no way it could have not happened. This is likely to lead to pessimism, as we ask "why must the world be a world that includes murder and cruelty... Or course "Candide" may come along and claim that this is really the "best of all possible worlds", and that the things we had been regretting are really for the best in the end, so we should not regret them any longer. Pessimism would, if we accept this, turn to blithe optimism and we would regret having regretted the existence of murder and such...

But, oops! Since we did in fact regret them, we must have been determined to regret them. And now we plunge back into pessimism: "why must the world be a world in which I am determined to regret things that should not be regretted because, after all, they are ultimately for the best" In this way, determinism leads to a waffling between pessimism, which saps the will and keeps us from acting, and optimism, which confounds thought by leading directly back into the contradiction outlined above (the idea that I should regret having regretted the murder, and yet I was determined to regret the murder and I shouldn t regret regretting something I couldn t help doing). James now considers whether "gnosticism" or "subjectivism" might be the path to take. Perhaps it is like this: the evil deed (e. g., the murder) is not good, after all (rejecting Candide's argument), and yet it is good that we know good and evil. That is, the murder itself is not good; but knowledge of evil things, deepening our theoretical consciousness of good and evil, is good.

James says subjectivism has an advantage over pessimism in that it does make moral judgments the main thing (murder is bad, but it is good that I have knowledge of it because I need that knowledge in order to make moral judgments). Nonetheless, he rejects subjectivism, on practical grounds (162): James says subjectivism leads to "nerveless sentimentalism" ("Let me sin like David that I may repent like David"), or to sensualism as in the French romanticists (and romanticism generally, with its tendency to want to experience everything for the sake of experiencing it even debauchery, e.g. ). James chooses, instead, to follow Carlyle, who reacted to the romantic movement by saying: Act! Action, objective conduct is the thing not the self-indulgence of going out to experience every possible feeling a human being can have.

But again, what's essential here, in deciding between determinism and chance If determinism leads either to pessimism or to subjectivism, and if we reject both of those, what is our alternative It's indeterminism, of course but what does indeterminism (belief in chance) lead to Again James repeats: the essential difference between determinism and indeterminism is that determinism says we know that all is determined, while indeterminism admits limits to our understanding. That is to say: Indeterminism sees the universe as a plurality of semi-independent forces, each of which may help or hinder the rest. That is what indeterminism amounts to. This view the universe as a plurality of semi-independent forces, each of which may help or hinder the rest is, James says, the only one he has found that can make sense out of the fact of regret, by admitting that there are real, genuine possibilities.

Granted, to choose indeterminism over determinism because belief in chance is the only way to make sense out of the fact that we feel regret when things like cruelty occur, is not to choose on the basis of a scientifically coercive argument. But James never pretended he could give such an argument in fact, he has been saying all along that he cannot, that belief in chance rather than determinism (or vice versa) cannot be treated as a factual matter. Repeating again the indeterminism picture: a universe inclusive of chance is "a pluralistic, restless universe in which no single point of view can take in the whole scene". Now James reviews again what objections can be raised to the different beliefs: Objection to indeterminism: it violates the absolutism of my intellect Objection to determinism: it violates my sense of moral reality Objection to romanticism: it "falsifies the simple objectivity of my moral reactions"; it corrupts our "moral sense" Reviewing the three cases, James opts for indeterminism. Again, what is chance The only sort of chance we have motive for supposing to exist is "the chance of a better future". Why not speak of belief in "freedom" rather than belief in "chance", then Because chance" is better able to convey to sense that we are giving up total control; we are admitting there is no total control anywhere.

But then, is indeterminism incompatible with the idea of a divine Providence controlling everything in the universe Not really, James says. To explain, he uses the analogy between an indeterminate (chance) universe and a chess game between an expert and a novice. We can imagine a situation in which the expert sees all possibilities from the start, and also where he determines some rigorously from the start. Others he might determine contingently ("this is the move I ll make if the other player makes move X").

And still others he might leave absolutely open, at the start whether he leaves them open to be decided later by himself or to be decided later by the other player (the point is they are genuinely open now, at the start of the game)..