Strawson's Contrast Between Hume and James

does physicalism entail panpsychism panexperientialism consciousness place nature materialism monism neutral real matter energy mind awareness philosophy psychology physics

On December18th I posted here a discussion of Galen Strawson's 2011 book, THE EVIDENT CONNEXION: HUME ON PERSONAL IDENTITY. I promised then that I would come back to the subject.

The very short version is this. Hume understands personal identity to depend on the mind. It can't depend on the brain, or the body generally, because for Hume our knowledge of enduring physical objects is quite limited -- we know bundles of sensations that act together with regularity.

So personal identity depends on the mind, and Humean philosophy needs an active (to some extent an enduring) mind to do the work of generating "fictions" (in some sense) about enduring physical objects and causal relations among them.

But when Hume tries to analyze the mind and what we know of it, it too rather crumbles in his hands. He finds that he could make sense of the knowing mind only if he believed either in a soul or in a strong knowable connection of cause and effect. Hume rejects them both. The second of those possibilities suggests a succession of mind states in which each would be the cause of the next one and the effect of the one before, in a strong metaphysical sense of "causation" -- again something Hume regards as unknowable. So he has no resources left for this project and admits defeat.

This gets us to William James. Despite James' use of the phrase "stream of consciousness," which everyone remembers largely because of its later adoption by literary critics, there was a sense of discontinuity to James' account of the mind. He saw consciousness, or thought, as a series of pulses, with each pulse remembering earlier pulses and claiming them as its own. So in each specious moment the self is creating itself anew by remembering certain earlier selves from the inside.

This could put James in   much the same predicament as Hume. James believes in a self that does a lot of creative things, and these things require endurance over time (many spacious presents).

Strawson includes a compare-and-contrast exercise involving David Hume and William James.  Can that self still exist if we think of it as a collection of ontologically separate pulses?

Well, yes. And James can say so with a consistency not available for Hume, because James has a resource Hume doesn't have. The brain. James begins his two-volume work with a detailed discussion of what was known in his day of the brain. Chapter 1 is merely a brief comment on the scope of psychology as a science. Chapters 2 and 3, each lengthy, each have the word "brain" in their title. With this start, James doesn't have Hume's difficulty with continuity because he assumes this particular physical fact as a datum.

The brain is the place where successive experiences, thoughts that are also the thinker, occur or reside. As Strawson puts it, "It's enough for him that short-lived selves, numerically distinct, arise successively from the same brain (from brain conditions that have considerable similarity from moment to moment, even as they change.)" Strawson can find "no grounds for an objection to the substance of [James'] proposal" regarding personal identity.

Later in life, James became more of a philosophical radical himself, and adopted, or at the least seriously entertained, a sort of neutral monism where everything might ontologically be "pure experience." That was a more Humean position, and might indeed be susceptible to the objections that Strawson says Hume leveled at himself.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog