kkazan's page

 I found myself very interested in the idea that we spoke about at the end of the class today: Alice James' reaction to Bryn Mawr. I don't think I agree with xsoloadsolem and aseidman that seeing Bryn Mawr, a school full of women like herself who were allowed to go after an intellectual education which she herself was not allowed to, would pain her. I can understand where the idea comes from, that she was so weak and frail and that the sight of a dream that was taken away from her might be too much to bear, but I think that Alice was stronger than that. I think that, like jrlewis said, she would have been overjoyed to visit Bryn Mawr, finding a place that she would have been allowed to live her life on her terms. I do not think she was bedridden because she didn't feel that the world could not hold a place for her, but because she had been kept away from that world by her family. 

I also found it very interesting that Peggy was so much like her aunt, and it spurred a thought in me. What would William's reaction have been if he were aware of the similarities? Was he aware? I find it interesting that while he did not like his sister he raised a woman much like her, the difference being that Peggy was allowed to live in such a world. Was part of William's disgust possibly towards his father, for was it for Alice not standing up to her father and showing him that there was a place in the world for smart women? 

Notes from class on 4/21

Anne: Topics for papers due on Friday.

Ariel: Gertrude Stein’s play…going to be writing out stage directions and the characters, etc. It’s a subjective reality idea.

Alex: Want to have the reader engage in conversation with William James. There will be several different answers to questions and depending on what you choose, you’ll go off in different directions. It’s a way to tie in different sorts of philosophies that I am still grappling with.

Julia: I want to see how William James’ philosophy is a recipe for how to live your life. It is non-deterministic. Like guidelines for experiences. He is so open ended that you can’t be a follower; he wants you to figure it out on your own, like a chef knows you will do with a cake recipe. Your life is a function of your own creation. Maybe write it as a recipe.

Katelyn: A combination of both Julia’s and Alex’s. Put William James’ writings in terms that are relevant to our lives and do not seem like orders but suggestions. 

Isabel: At the beginning of William James we talked about habit. I had this thing with Pringles. Well, I stopped eating them and kept a blog about it. I tried to relate it back to James. Feels like a little bit cheating to use a blog that I’ve already written, but with an added part.

Katherine: I’m going to draw comic strips, some of which will take direct quotes from William James’ works. Looking at James in a totally different genre that has a more humorous mentality.

Anne: So it is another attempt to translate it for our audience.

Jessica: I Think I’ll use Gertrude Stein and expand on the exercise of glossing passages and then make a map of it.

Marina: In my cultural phsyc class William James came up in a mental disorder where your brain becomes so stimulated that becomes tired. They called it Americanitis. I’m going to look at in college students who are in a cultural pit of insecurities.

Weezy: I thought about the images of the fish bowl and the shrunken heads. I’m going to go through the readings from William James and do a photo essay of his metaphors. The critical question is to discuss the images and talk about one versus the other and how it changes the metaphor. I’m going to deconstruct why I think the images are helpful and give alternative metaphors.

Anne: I like the photo essay. I’m really liking the multiple meanings of words like in Gertrude Stein. We need to not assume a word has only one meaning or image. You might be able to turn this into a final project.

Weezy: I could add in the places Henry James writes and about his protagonists.

Anne: My hope is to post responses over the weekend and them have a conference about the final project. I will not take it until we have talked about it one Monday. We will also talk about the final portfolio. Come ready to let me know about your performances. Readings might be an inspiration for performances. Look at them comparison with the modern commencement speeches. They are like 20^th century versions of the earlier talks. This class has also been about reader response theory where you try to highlight multiple irreducible subjectivity. James does not trivialize or write a script, but asks us to start where we are and use what we have. I framed the class with a bio of the James family. Paul Jefferson thought our understanding should be framed in a larger cultural position…hence The Metaphysical Club. He was a cultural historian. A lot of what he writes is very William Jamesian.

Jessica: It was surprisingly funny.

Anne: He makes a contextual history funny and interesting. The argument and literally the idea is that there is no one-way to live in the world. He rejected absolutes. I had you read the passages that focused on William James. They were useful because it has a larger expanse. Starts with Oliver Wendell Holmes who decided that no abstraction was worth the cost of that kind of violence…after he fought in the Civil War. He felt that having an abstract idea leads to violence so he turned to pragmatism. So we are going to gloss the reading like we did last class.

Weezy: pg 89 top paragraph – Essentially encapsulates the fact that pragmatism effects the ability to question things that exist socially. Gives us the ability to question what we think necessary. An undercurrent of skepticism. It doesn’t necessarily run deeper than that until you have a theory. It completely undermines society and the idea that the human is independent of the animal world. A really complex, concise, encapsulation of pragmatism and the way it lead to enabling James and thinking about further.

Marina: pg 91 “Psychics…”I like it because it ties back to the stream of consciousness. How some people can penetrate into other people’s streams.

Anne: A psychic can access another’s stream and a realm beyond the material. Like when William stays after Henry’s and tried to communicate with his brother after his death. Very different dimensions that we are interested in. Incredible breadth that James was interested in.

Jessica: pg. 361 “They just use a hand…” It pokes a little fun at the importance we place on little things. Not so much why we have the idea, but what we do with them.

Anne: Cash value of them.

Katheirne: p. 86 bottom “This confirmed…” I felt sad for Alice. All of us are going to be pissed. This must be why Alice killed herself.

Ariel: I think it is interesting that all those things require strength and stamina but yet woman are weak.

Anne: It gives you a very particular motivation for Alice’s hysteria.

Weezy: I’ve been waiting for someone to shed light on her life and the nature of her disease and mental aversion to society. 

Isabel: There is another good line about how it affected their lives and thinking about them, but it wouldn’t have changed for her. Pg. 75 “His solution” I thought it was nice context for saying he couldn’t make up his mind in practices and theories. It makes sense that he couldn’t make up his mind in his own life.

Anne: In the book, it says that William James hated Hegel. (pg. 358) Did he really?

Katherine: No, he barely even knew who he was.

Anne; That passage was just a flag that you can’t trust any storyteller. He didn’t hate him…he decided what ideas to hold onto and to discard. It was a little bit of overwriting.

Julia: Pg. 351 1^st full paragraph I like the emphasis on uncertainty and the process of decision making.

Anne: Is there a difference between the decisions? Does the category affect the hardness of making the decision? I think his philosophy comes from a character trait: the inability to make decisions.

Alex: pg. 76 He was just so indecisive. What kind of effect would that have on you psychologically?

Wezzy: He was replicating the way he was raised.

Anne: He differed from his father in many ways, but it is an interesting echo.

Isabel: I think he felt left out of the defining experience of his generation of going to war. It would have been redefining.

Anne: He seemed to be relieved but felt guilty.

Ariel: pg 121 last paragraph Genre and generalizations of genres. If it is important to make generalizations, how can anything be subjective? I’m confused. 

Jessica: In our conversation with Vallbah we said it was not how we divide things into groups but what they have in common.

Isabel: We have to accept the problem. Sometimes generalizations are inaccurate but you have to make them.

Anne: Make them with the awareness that they are inaccurate. One of the primary themes is that the value of pragmatism is tolerance. Pragmatism made it hard to go to violence based on your beliefs.

Katherine: Menard has the civil war as being this huge event in their lives, but we never looked at it in class so I didn’t see its relevance or connection.

Weezy: It was in the Holmes intro, but they didn’t have to say what they were talking about because it was the current context. But we needed to hear it. It was the elephant in the room for us, but everyone else had already met it.

Anne: Should we have read this first?

Jessica: I think that I needed to struggle through the readings, but this makes it clearer and makes me like James.  

Weezy: It was like a treat we had to earn. We needed to explore our own theories.

Alex: It could’ve come first because I had so much trouble understanding I almost felt like giving up. This might have helped me.

Ariel: But it makes us like him as a character which would have helped some of us who just hated him.

Weezy: It was a good background.

Anne: pg. 441 “Martin King was not…” At the end he pulls the rug out from under pragmatism. The civil rights movement, the civil war wouldn’t have happened.

Wezzy: But pragmatists have to have structures to exist in order to be conversed. It needs to be an antithesis.

Isabel: It ignores human nature. The last line…overwhelming human emotions that you are going to fight to the death for it. It is very motivating and important. It’s great for when things are fine.

Anne: It wouldn’t let you believe so intensely that you would be willing to for a belief.

Isabel: It is explained by human nature which pragmatism cannot trump.

Anne: It highlights our rationality by not acknowledging passionate sources. Is there an idea that anyone would be willing to die for?

Isabel: Not yet, but I hope there will be.

 William James, "Dimensions of radical Empiricism, Conclusions" 

"The scientist, so-called, is, during his scientific hours at least, so materialistic that one may well say that on the whole the influence of science goes against the notion that religion should be recognized at all." 762

I felt that I had to write on this quote, though a bit random. It does not speak to me, and does not seem representative of the entire piece, but it coincides so perfectly with something I read today. I received an e-mail (I know not the most reliable source) that was almost in complete opposition to this statement, and it made me start to think. The e-mail, supposably a conversations Albert Einstein had in one of his college philosophy classes, makes the statement, in opposition to his professor's point, that science is based on theories, most of which, "according to the established rules of the emprirical, stable, demonstrable protocol," cannot exist. So, Einstein states, science, like the belief in God is based on faith. Faith that, though we cannot prove through our senses that there is evolution, all we know shows that there is evolution. 

Though this is a bit different from what James is saying, it seems to connect. If science is based on faith, as religion is, then science can in no way prove that there is no religion, and so science must recognize it. Now as this is a theory not of my own, I cannot explain how this conclusion is got at, but I will include the argument found in the e-mail at the end of my post. But, the fact that science is based on faith and belief and so cannot only disprove religion, but in a sense proves it by being unable to disprove it, seems like something that did not occur to James. It does however bring us back to James' "The Will to Believe," in which James says "I have brought with me to-night something like a sermon on justification by faith ... a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters..." And so I find James coming to the same conclusion that Einstein comes to. "Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?"  Although I must say, I am not sure what this means or proves, or really what my conclusion to this post is. Except that, though both men were scientists, they both found religion to be a 'truth,' something based on faith and belief which cannot be proved, but is proved to do good in our lives and the lives of those who believe. 

Now that I am not sure I have said anything original, here is the copy of the e-mail which spurred this line of thought. 

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'  The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.     'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'  'Yes sir,' the student says.  'So you believe in God?'     'Absolutely.. '  'Is God good?'  'Sure! God's good.'     'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'     'Yes'  'Are you good or evil?'     'The Bible says I'm evil.'  The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'  'Yes sir, I would.'     'So you're good...!'  'I wouldn't say that.'  'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'     The student does not answer, so the professor continues.  'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'  The student remains silent.     'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'  'Er..yes,' the student says.     'Is Satan good?'  The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'  'Then where does Satan come from?'     The student falters. 'From God'  'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'  'Yes, sir.'     'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'  'Yes'  'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'  Again, the student has no answer.     'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'  The student squirms on his feet.     'Yes.'  'So who created them?'     The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'     The student's voice betrays him and cracks.     'Yes, professor, I do.'  The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'     'No sir.. I've never seen Him.'  'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'     'No, sir, I have not.'  'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'  'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'  'Yet you still believe in him?'  'Yes'  'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'  'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'  'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'  The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.     'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'  ' Yes.  'And is there such a thing as cold?'     'Yes, son, there's cold too.'     'No sir, there isn't.'     The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.  The room suddenly becomes very quiet.     The student begins to explain.     'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.     You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.  We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'  Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.  'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'     'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'     'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'     The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.     'So what point are you making, young man?'  'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'     The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed?     Can you explain how?'  'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'  'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'  'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'  The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.  'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'  The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.     'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'     Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'  'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'     Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'     To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'     The professor sat down.

William James' "The Stream of Thought"

"One may admit that a good third of our psychic life consists in these rapid premonitory perspective views of schemes of thoughts no yet articulate. How comes it about that a man reading aloud for the first time is able immediately to emphasize all his words aright, unless from the very first he have a sense of at least the form of the sentence yet to come, which sense is fused with his consciousness of the present word, and modifies its emphasis in his mind so as to make him give it the proper accent as he utters it." pg.44

This quote, more than any other, brought to light the constant struggle that James is having with the English language. He expresses the shortcomings of the language he writes in almost as often as he expresses a new idea. At one point he suggests that Latin might serve his purposes better, but I wonder? Isn't this always the case when expressing something for the first time? Just as when thinking it for the first time. Language has not quite caught up to where James' mind is leading from. But this is the case with everything, and it is almost, as if by pointing out the lack of appropriate words he has to work with, showing you the lack of reference your brain has to work with at the conception of a new idea. Is James really annoyed with the English language, or is he using it as an example to show the reader what the consciousness must do at the conception of a new 'stream' of thought or reference point? It's one in same...isn't it. A lack of precedence or familiarity with the new subject, in James' case.

Maybe I have misunderstood his meaning in and among all of his outbursts of inadequacy, but this I have gotten: William James is expressing something which has never been expressed before in the terms of the old. It seems the first thing he ought to do is define specific terms which will aid in his unfolding of ideas.

Can the new be expressed in the same terms of the old?

  The idea of a written portrait is slightly hard for me to grasp. A portrait is generally a piece of art, yet who is to say that writing is not art? Henry James seems rather intent on playing with our usual idea of a portrait. Generally, we see portraits like that of Rembrant or Renoir; the classical ideal of a painted portrait.