William James and Swami Vivekananda: Their Relationship and the Conceptual Resemblance of Vedānta and Pragmatism

Q3 Arts and Humanities History of Philosophy Quarterly Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.5406/21521026.38.3.05
Chris Zajner
{"title":"William James and Swami Vivekananda: Their Relationship and the Conceptual Resemblance of Vedānta and Pragmatism","authors":"Chris Zajner","doi":"10.5406/21521026.38.3.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n William James considered Swami Vivekananda the paragon of monists. Yet he comes to reject Vivekananda's philosophy as a result of monism's ineluctable philosophical conundrums and because it ultimately did not suit his active temperament. James's simplified assessment of Vivekananda's philosophy, however, reveals he had only a limited understanding of Vedānta. It can be speculated that James's understanding of Vedānta was mainly the aspect of rāja yoga (the science of psychic control)—which is evinced by the fact that he disagrees with what he perceives as a lack of ability to justify meliorism and a zestful life. But this conception of James's leaves out of consideration karma yoga—or the active principle of Vedānta—which advocates work as the means to realize the divine. Contra James's conception, it is more illustrative to understand Vedānta not as a doctrine of extreme “monism” but rather an attitude that cultivates every particular temperament and disposition. With this rectification, it becomes much clearer that there are significant parallels in viewpoints between James and Vivekananda that have been underappreciated.","PeriodicalId":53558,"journal":{"name":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/21521026.38.3.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

William James considered Swami Vivekananda the paragon of monists. Yet he comes to reject Vivekananda's philosophy as a result of monism's ineluctable philosophical conundrums and because it ultimately did not suit his active temperament. James's simplified assessment of Vivekananda's philosophy, however, reveals he had only a limited understanding of Vedānta. It can be speculated that James's understanding of Vedānta was mainly the aspect of rāja yoga (the science of psychic control)—which is evinced by the fact that he disagrees with what he perceives as a lack of ability to justify meliorism and a zestful life. But this conception of James's leaves out of consideration karma yoga—or the active principle of Vedānta—which advocates work as the means to realize the divine. Contra James's conception, it is more illustrative to understand Vedānta not as a doctrine of extreme “monism” but rather an attitude that cultivates every particular temperament and disposition. With this rectification, it becomes much clearer that there are significant parallels in viewpoints between James and Vivekananda that have been underappreciated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
威廉·詹姆斯与斯瓦米·维韦卡南达:他们的关系及Vedānta与实用主义的概念相似性
威廉·詹姆斯认为斯瓦米·维韦卡南达是一元论的典范。然而,他开始拒绝维韦卡南达的哲学,这是一元论不可避免的哲学难题的结果,也是因为它最终不适合他积极的气质。然而,詹姆斯对维韦卡南达哲学的简化评估表明,他对吠陀的理解有限。可以推测,詹姆斯对吠陀的理解主要是rāja瑜伽(心理控制科学)的方面——这一点可以从他不同意他认为缺乏证明美利主义和热情生活的能力这一事实中得到证明。但詹姆斯的这一概念忽略了因果报应瑜伽——或吠陀的积极原则——它主张将工作作为实现神圣的手段。与詹姆斯的概念相反,更能说明问题的是,吠陀不是一种极端“一元论”的学说,而是一种培养每一种特定气质和性格的态度。经过这一修正,詹姆斯和维韦卡南达之间的观点有着明显的相似之处,但却被低估了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
History of Philosophy Quarterly
History of Philosophy Quarterly Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Good in Boethius’ De hebdomadibus Against Passionate Epistemology On Splitting the Atom Deriving Positive Duties from Kant's Formula of Universal Law Constitution, Causation, and the Final Opinion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1