Skip to main content

Forming a sentence? Part One


The italicized passage below is part of a well-known passage in William James's Principles of Psychology. 

He is discussing the idea of consciousness as mental chemistry, whereby ideas considered as atoms, or as specks of mind dust, can be said to combine into larger compounds, complicated systems of thought and conclusion. To the believers in such a mental chemistry, the brain is a sort of petri dish where these combinations take place, but the brain doesn't make the connections, it simply allows them. 

The underlying system of thought, which owed something to Leibniz' monadology, was expounded in earnest by some now mostly forgotten figures such as Adolf Fick and Hippolyte Taine. James credits (?) Fick with being the first to argue clearly that (in James' paraphrase) "bits of mind-stuff [grow] into distinctly sensible feelings," and perhaps by extension into the whole of a mind. 

So James comes to express in the following striking manner, why this idea seems so odd. 

 "Take a sentence of a dozen words and take twelve men and tell to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch and let each think of his word as intently as he will; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence."

Indeed.  The compound sentence exists nowhere, in that situation.  Of course, they could each shout out their one word in the proper order and then each would recognize it as a sentence. But unless someone told them what order to shout in, it is only by a very odd happenstance that this turns out to be the right sentence. 

And even if it does, it in that case is being presented to the twelve minds through their twelve brains and the attached sensory equipment. That is a synthesizing of data by a mind, not any contribution to the creation of a mind through the compounding of data. 

So: James was taking on a bad idea, and since the bad idea is no longer prevalent amongst us, we tend to see James' whole chapter on this subject as an oddity, even if in some passages strikingly expressed. Is there any other reason why this is even worth a blog post in 2023? 

Yes: and it will occupy us tomorrow. It involves another old friend of this blog: Herbert Spencer. In the Anglosphere, Spencer is a larger name with which to conjure spirits than either Fick or Taine.  

[By the way, that is Taine portrayed above.] 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
7 comments
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
13 comments
Read more