Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

The October issue of Harper's has a neat story by T.C. Boyle. The premise is: the first-person protagonist lives within walking distance of the home of a recluse  who was once (in the late 70s, early 80s) a member of a "third-tier" but financially successful rock band. The rocker/recluse has just died, and no one noticed that fact until people walking by the house smelled an overwhelming stench and called the authorities. The protagonist feels compelled early one morning to enter the now-empty house and look around, getting to know the enigmatic decedent. This entry and examination takes place by degrees, and the story does a great job of drawing us in to how the narrator is himself ... drawn in. Sample: There was a grand piano in one corner (Steinway, white) and across from it an electric version hooked up via a nest of wires to a pair of speakers that stood on either side of it. I had an impulse to lift the lid on the Steinway and try a key or two -- who ...

I wrote here last week about William James' discussion of what "philosophy" means in the early pages of his last book.   I paraphrased his views somewhat, saying that "James believes that philosophy is only thinking about the world in an exceptionally rigorous way.”  A friend wrote and questioned the validity of this paraphrase. In one of my direct quotes from James, after all, I have him referring  to exceptional men’s “imagination,” not their “rigor.” My friend finds this significant because if we define philosophy by the “rigor” of one's thought, we suggest that any intelligent person, by dint of application, can make a contribution to philosophy.  On the other hand (says further my inquisitive and analytical friend) to say that philosophers are distinguished by “imagination” implies that some faculty of which some people have far more than others is required.  So which is it: are philosophers a specialized caste, naturally as well...