Skip to main content

William James and Mind-Body Neutrality II

Image result for coffee temperature paradox

In yesterday's post I laid out three "neutralist" theories and said something about the relationship of William James' thought to each. I'd like to tie that line of inquiry up a bit today.

Again, the theories are: neutral monism; dual aspect theory; panpsychism.

What they maintain in each case is that there is some stuff that is neither mental nor physical, and that the mental and physical realms are constructions out of this stuff, so that we can allow for mind-body interaction without freaking out over HOW?

For a neutral monist, the stuff is an underlying collection of data or unclassified facts such as an image of a piece of paper.

For a dual aspect theory, the stuff is God, the Universe, Everything Considered as a Totality.

For a panpsychist, the stuff is, well, mindful matter. Which includes all matter (and, likely enough, all mind.)

I shared yesterday, too, my own impression that the first listed of those three arises out of a principle of parsimony, the Ockhamist impulse to build the world out of the fewest components. The third of those arises rather out of metaphysical exuberance, gleefully dispensing with parsimony. The middle term, Monism, may be considered middle in precisely this regard.

This brings us to the paradox we might face if we study James' texts with this typology in mind. We seem to see a close resemblance between views A, B, and C, which escaped him. Moreover, he discussed both A and C, both favorably though without decisive adoption as his own view, Yet his discussions of A seem to take place in a different compartment of his mind (or body!) from his discussions of C. They don't come in contact,

Moreover, he had a visceral opposition to B. It was "the Absolute" -- the "upper dogmatism,"

So: what is going on here?

Perhaps we should regard the plausibility of neutralist theories of mind and body as akin to the temperature of coffee. One can like hot coffee (in certain contexts), like iced coffee as well (in other contexts) yet reject and disdain lukewarm coffee.

James' philosophy was in large part an effort to prove that human deliberations matter. "To think is the only moral act." Our deliberations are not forced or predetermined, and the actions into which they issue can change our lives and the lives of others around us in which for which there is no limit. We can get to that self-conception either by heating up the coffee or by cooling it down, James suspected, and he was willing to entertain either approach.

The lukewarm coffee? Despite its family resemblance to the good stuff(s), it wouldn't get the job done, and the only way to pretend that it did, was to go over to the other side.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …