World History

[Bob]

True, but I think it was either through James, or in his era at least that the separation of philosophy from the sciences occured

Let me see if I can find out ....

[johnr60]

Philosophy is involved with uncertainties.  As each science became certain of their position they broke from philosophy.

[weezo]

John,

You may be onto it. As I read more last night, I got into the greater use of quantity over quality in judging science, and the return to reliance on the replicable experiment instead of the beautifully worded argument. So, it may have to do with the quantitization of science that moved it from one column to the next.

Bob,

I don't know which James you are referring to, so have no idea what era that could be. Sorry, I'm just not that academic. I am reading more in retirement than I did for many years. Many teachers are heavy readers during the summer, but I tended to spend my summers preparing materials for the students (that were not purchased by the district despite the need), and learning to use computers.

[Bob]

William James was a Philosopher/Psychologist, in fact the  guy who developed the discipline of Psychology out of Philosopohy. He wrote PRAGMATISM and is generally the looked on as the father of the concept and the father of modern Psychology. He lived until about 1910 and was extremely influential in his day.  There's a new biography of him--which is why his name came to mind.

His brother was Henry James, novelist, who lived into the 1920's. Who was moire influential in his day is hard to say--but today William is more remembered. Henry wrote TURN OF THE SCREW & WASHINGTON SQUARE and numerous other works.  He's the guy who coined the term THEODORE REX to describe Theodore Roosevelt.

Their father was also very prominent....the entire family was very extraordinary...

[Bob]

Returning to the original question, after some very superficial reading, it may go back to Emanuel Kant---since its out of my realm, I'll leave it to others to come up with an answer.

[johnr60]

"He wrote PRAGMATISM and is generally the looked on as the father of the concept..."

I think you will find that even James gives that paternity to Charles Peirce

[weezo]

John,

Thanks. I was always taught that Freud was the father of psychiatry/psychology.

Theodore Rex would be an interesting title for Teddy Roosevelt. He did think himself the consumate leader of the country! I read his biography by Nathan Miller in recent months.

I may well like William James book on Pragmatism. I have generally prided myself on being more practical than philosophical. I'll add it to my "books to buy" list tonight.

[thanatopsy]

William James's Varieties of Religious Experience was a phenomenal study of the subject which was very popular in college back in the 60s and 70s.  As with much of the material we studied then, it has fallen into obscurity.

[Bob]

I think you will find that even James gives that paternity to Charles Peirce

How true. But there's an interesting substory to it....My favorite book on the subject is THE METAPHYSICAL CLUB, which  has Peirce harkening back to Kant. Menand  quotes Kant's use of the term, if  not the concept, on page 227 and then says: "Kant  thought of "pragmatic belief" as one of several kinds of belief; Peirce thought it was the only kind of belief." Then, on page 228  Menand states: "So far, Peirce was only coining a philosophical term-pragmatism-for an idea already shared by  by Wright, Green, Holmes, and James (and for that matter by James Stephen and Alexander Bain)."

So Peirce has antecedents also.

Anyhow, on Page 347 Menand remarks "William James invented pragmatism as a favor to Charles Peirce. Peirce needed one. He then recounts a sorid tale of Peirce and his troubles and how James came to help him. The he recounts how James  "introduced the term "pragmatism" to the world," and quotes James giving  credit to Peirce.  "James's lecture made pragmatism a subject of internationsl discussion and debate for twenty years. " (See Menand, pages 347 to 351).

It was James, not Peirce , who brought Pragmatisam to the world. Though Peirce, who got it from Kant, delivered it to James, James gets the credit--without him Pragmatism  might never have reached the prominence it did. Peirce is little known today for several reasons....he was a sad character in history.

By the way the Menand book is an excellent study which should be read by all who wish to understand the era it covers, late 1800's into the early 1900's. It covers Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey.

Charles Sanders Peirce founded semiotics. Peirce's  question was "What does it mean to say that a statement is "true"  in a world always susceptible to a "certain swerving" ?  (Menand, 223)

[madupont]

nytempsperdu,

The discussion was taking place in the forums  at the time of 9/11 and came to a halt as the shock set in.    I found this out, from sheer curiosity as to how the forums responded that day; so, I looked it up because we were now too far removed from the event to gauge correctly how we had first reacted.  It was very strange reading  from the page, that is: on-line, about peoples' realizations.

[Bob]

Philosophy is involved with uncertainties.  As each science became certain of their position they broke from philosophy.

Probably the best answer of all and as far as I can see thie trend began either late 18th or early 19th century.

By the way, in Richardson's biography of Henry James, on page 136, he says that Pragmatism was born and formed in Cambridge in the early 1870's in the Metaphysical Club. I'll have to look again in the text to see how much credit he gives Peirce.

[johnr60]

"In 1851, A. A. Cournot worked out a system which
introduced a separation between structural laws and
historical criteria in all their forms by employing three
great series of sciences, a theoretical, an historical, and
a practical series, each composed of the following kinds
of science: mathematical, physical, biological, mental
or symbolical, and political. Every branch of science
has its place in one of the three times five boxes in
columns."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-57

see pragmatism at the same site

[madupont]

I'm rereading Ten Days That Shook The World intending to discuss it with lhoffman and any interested others in Oct. in Nonfiction.  It could be moved here or remain there.  Certainly, there's no shortage of books of interest and I'm grateful to whoever got this new thread started, and will try to follow even when unable to participate.  THANKS!

[madupont]

There is a bit of a contretemps in that I find myself being pushed out of Nonfiction where I am discussing Peeling the Onion, I've been given a lot of static, and that is ultimately discouraging since, no one cares to believe that I asked permission in advance to discuss this biography, until they get a direct message from the administrator about their activities.   My perception was that he added a  second forum thread here to cover the variety of choices when people wanted to read something else such as Reed.  It is a bit embarrassing to have to contact him every day because people simply doubt my word and then indulge in saying a lot of ugly things that are uncalled for  since the distraction causes me to lose a lot of time. As of now because of the constant interruption, I have perhaps eleven days instead of the amount of time required for analyzing a personal history.

[Donotremove]

Maddy, if you are, indeed, contacting the Admin every day about the dust up over in Non Fiction, it is you who have become an embarrassment.  And to bring the mess over here to World History is unreal.

First, I don't know where you got the idea that anyone had to ask Admin permission to discuss any book for any time period. That is not so.  Books are discussed as a consensus is made among posters to discuss them.  Your book choice had no such consensus, and now is not likely to ever have one.  It is obvious to everyone that you are reading and discussing the book entirely by yourself.

Maddy, please drop this matter.