What's the Use of Reading Emerson Pragmatically? the Example of William James

Q4 Arts and Humanities Nineteenth Century Prose Pub Date : 2003-03-22 DOI:10.2307/j.ctt13x0bvb.5
J. M. Albrecht
{"title":"What's the Use of Reading Emerson Pragmatically? the Example of William James","authors":"J. M. Albrecht","doi":"10.2307/j.ctt13x0bvb.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For those who see Emerson as a seminal figure in American pragmatism, 2003 marks not only the bicentennial of Emerson's birth, but a century since William James and John Dewey delivered addresses that constitute their most explicit public pronouncements on their great American precursor. While the recent renaissance in Emerson studies has coincided with a rediscovery of Emerson's incipient pragmatism, the full import of his affinities to the American pragmatists remains under-appreciated--especially in regards to how we are to read and assess the body of his work. Much criticism persists in reading Emerson as a naively optimistic idealist of the monistic variety, and even those who stress the pluralistic nature of Emerson's vision question just how far, and to what purpose, one can claim the \"pragmatic\" character of his thought. This issue can be illuminated by considering how William James himself applied his pragmatic method in reading and assessing Emerson's writings. James asserts that the true meaning of competing philosophical beliefs lies in their practical consequences for human behavior--in their ability to guide our actions to results that satisfy our human needs. For James, the most \"pregnant\" of such philosophical conflicts is that between monism and pluralism, for only a pluralistic universe, one with genuine contingency and novelty, can satisfy our need to make moral judgments and contribute meaningful efforts toward improving our world. Moreover, James insists that pluralism is an anti-absolutist view, capable of acknowledging a great deal of determinism and unification in the world, capable of seeing the world as both \"one\" and \"many,\" so long as there exists some small, yet sufficient, degree of indeterminacy. Short of adopting a truly absolutist determinism, James concludes, assertions of unity (such as one finds peppered throughout Emerson's writings) are relatively empty statements that express a sheer wonder at the existence of the universe. In his 1903 centenary address, James applies these arguments to assert that Emerson's sensitivity to \"the rank diversity of individual facts\" made his vision essentially pluralistic, and he pragmatically locates the fundamental pluralism of Emerson's thought in its prescriptions for human behavior: far from an \"indiscriminate\" monistic optimism, Emerson endorses a melioristic activism that prefigures the ethics of both James and Dewey. James' assessment helps highlight how Emerson expresses such pluralistic attitudes in essays such as \"Self-Reliance,\" \"Nominalist and Realist,\" and \"The Uses of Great Men.\" In another regard, however, it is necessary to extend James' logic beyond his own conclusions. As his reaction to the conclusion of Emerson's essay \"History\" shows, James concluded that Emerson's voicing of conflicting perspectives, while not compromising the essential pluralism of his vision, was evidence of his failure to achieve philosophic consistency. Following critics such as Poirier and Cavell, we are much more likely to see Emerson's articulation of antagonistic views as a deliberate, perspectivist strategy that in fact anticipates James' own pragmatic emphases on action, transition, and an anti-dogmatic openness. ********** For those who see Ralph Waldo Emerson as a seminal figure in the tradition of American pragmatism, 2003 marks a double anniver-sary: it is not only the bicentennial of Emerson's birth, but also a century since William James and John Dewey, America's most influential prag-matic philosophers, delivered, on the occasion of Emerson's centennial, addresses that constitute their most explicit public pronouncements on their great American precursor. (1) Perhaps most striking, on this dual anni-versary, is the degree to which common perceptions of Emerson--both amongst academic critics and in American culture at large--have still not incorporated the significance of the legacy that James and Dewey ac-knowledged a century ago. …","PeriodicalId":39582,"journal":{"name":"Nineteenth Century Prose","volume":"24 1","pages":"388"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nineteenth Century Prose","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13x0bvb.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For those who see Emerson as a seminal figure in American pragmatism, 2003 marks not only the bicentennial of Emerson's birth, but a century since William James and John Dewey delivered addresses that constitute their most explicit public pronouncements on their great American precursor. While the recent renaissance in Emerson studies has coincided with a rediscovery of Emerson's incipient pragmatism, the full import of his affinities to the American pragmatists remains under-appreciated--especially in regards to how we are to read and assess the body of his work. Much criticism persists in reading Emerson as a naively optimistic idealist of the monistic variety, and even those who stress the pluralistic nature of Emerson's vision question just how far, and to what purpose, one can claim the "pragmatic" character of his thought. This issue can be illuminated by considering how William James himself applied his pragmatic method in reading and assessing Emerson's writings. James asserts that the true meaning of competing philosophical beliefs lies in their practical consequences for human behavior--in their ability to guide our actions to results that satisfy our human needs. For James, the most "pregnant" of such philosophical conflicts is that between monism and pluralism, for only a pluralistic universe, one with genuine contingency and novelty, can satisfy our need to make moral judgments and contribute meaningful efforts toward improving our world. Moreover, James insists that pluralism is an anti-absolutist view, capable of acknowledging a great deal of determinism and unification in the world, capable of seeing the world as both "one" and "many," so long as there exists some small, yet sufficient, degree of indeterminacy. Short of adopting a truly absolutist determinism, James concludes, assertions of unity (such as one finds peppered throughout Emerson's writings) are relatively empty statements that express a sheer wonder at the existence of the universe. In his 1903 centenary address, James applies these arguments to assert that Emerson's sensitivity to "the rank diversity of individual facts" made his vision essentially pluralistic, and he pragmatically locates the fundamental pluralism of Emerson's thought in its prescriptions for human behavior: far from an "indiscriminate" monistic optimism, Emerson endorses a melioristic activism that prefigures the ethics of both James and Dewey. James' assessment helps highlight how Emerson expresses such pluralistic attitudes in essays such as "Self-Reliance," "Nominalist and Realist," and "The Uses of Great Men." In another regard, however, it is necessary to extend James' logic beyond his own conclusions. As his reaction to the conclusion of Emerson's essay "History" shows, James concluded that Emerson's voicing of conflicting perspectives, while not compromising the essential pluralism of his vision, was evidence of his failure to achieve philosophic consistency. Following critics such as Poirier and Cavell, we are much more likely to see Emerson's articulation of antagonistic views as a deliberate, perspectivist strategy that in fact anticipates James' own pragmatic emphases on action, transition, and an anti-dogmatic openness. ********** For those who see Ralph Waldo Emerson as a seminal figure in the tradition of American pragmatism, 2003 marks a double anniver-sary: it is not only the bicentennial of Emerson's birth, but also a century since William James and John Dewey, America's most influential prag-matic philosophers, delivered, on the occasion of Emerson's centennial, addresses that constitute their most explicit public pronouncements on their great American precursor. (1) Perhaps most striking, on this dual anni-versary, is the degree to which common perceptions of Emerson--both amongst academic critics and in American culture at large--have still not incorporated the significance of the legacy that James and Dewey ac-knowledged a century ago. …
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
从实用主义角度阅读爱默生有什么用?以威廉·詹姆斯为例
对于那些认为爱默生是美国实用主义的先驱人物的人来说,2003年不仅标志着爱默生诞辰200周年,也是威廉·詹姆斯和约翰·杜威发表最明确的公开声明纪念这位伟大的美国先驱的一个世纪。虽然最近爱默生研究的复兴与爱默生早期实用主义的重新发现相吻合,但他与美国实用主义者的密切关系的全部重要性仍然没有得到充分的重视——特别是在我们如何阅读和评估他的作品主体方面。许多批评坚持认为爱默生是一元论的天真乐观的理想主义者,甚至那些强调爱默生视野的多元化本质的人也质疑,人们可以在多大程度上声称他的思想的“实用主义”特征,以及为了什么目的。这个问题可以通过考虑威廉·詹姆斯本人如何运用他的实用主义方法来阅读和评价爱默生的作品来说明。詹姆斯断言,相互竞争的哲学信仰的真正意义在于它们对人类行为的实际影响,在于它们指导我们的行为达到满足人类需求的结果的能力。对詹姆斯来说,这种哲学冲突中最“孕育”的是一元论和多元主义之间的冲突,因为只有一个多元的宇宙,一个真正具有偶然性和新颖性的宇宙,才能满足我们做出道德判断的需要,并为改善我们的世界做出有意义的努力。此外,詹姆斯坚持认为,多元主义是一种反绝对主义的观点,能够承认世界上大量的决定论和统一性,能够将世界视为“一”和“多”,只要存在一些小而充分的不确定性。詹姆斯总结说,没有采纳真正的绝对决定论,统一的主张(就像你在爱默生的作品中发现的那样)是相对空洞的陈述,表达了对宇宙存在的纯粹惊奇。在他1903年的百年纪念演讲中,詹姆斯运用这些论点来断言爱默生对“个体事实的高度多样性”的敏感性使他的视野本质上是多元的,他务实地将爱默生思想的基本多元性定位在其对人类行为的处方中:远离“不加区分的”一元论乐观主义,爱默生赞同一种改善主义的行动主义,这种行动主义预示了詹姆斯和杜威的伦理学。詹姆斯的评价有助于强调爱默生是如何在《自立》、《唯名论与现实主义》和《伟人的用处》等文章中表达这种多元态度的。然而,在另一方面,有必要将詹姆斯的逻辑延伸到他自己的结论之外。正如他对爱默生的文章《历史》的结论的反应所显示的那样,詹姆斯得出结论,爱默生对冲突观点的表达,虽然没有妥协其视野的本质多元性,但这是他未能实现哲学一致性的证据。继普瓦里尔和卡维尔等批评家之后,我们更有可能看到爱默生对对立观点的阐述是一种深思熟虑的、透视主义的策略,事实上,这种策略预测了詹姆斯自己对行动、过渡和反教条开放的实用主义强调。**********对于那些认为拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生是美国实用主义传统中具有开创性的人物的人来说,2003年标志着双重纪念日:这不仅是爱默生诞辰200周年,也是美国最有影响力的实用主义哲学家威廉·詹姆斯和约翰·杜威在爱默生诞辰100周年之际发表演讲的一个世纪,这些演讲构成了他们对伟大的美国先驱的最明确的公开声明。(1)在这两周年纪念之际,也许最引人注目的是,无论是在学术评论家中还是在整个美国文化中,对爱默生的普遍看法仍然没有将詹姆斯和杜威一个世纪前就承认的遗产的意义纳入其中。...
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
Nineteenth Century Prose
Nineteenth Century Prose Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: "Nineteenth-Century Prose" invites submissions for a special issue on the picturesque for Fall 2002. The picturesque is, arguably, the most pervasive and familiar aesthetic term of the nineteenth century, as well as its most controversial. It demarcates the limits of nineteenth century sympathy and designates the terms of cosmopolitan, national and regional inclusion.
期刊最新文献
The Limits of Metaphor in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals What's the Use of Reading Emerson Pragmatically? the Example of William James Periodical Literature in Nineteenth-Century America Patrick Brantlinger, Rule of Darkness: British Literature and Imperialism, 1830-1914 Ludmilla Jordanova, Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries
×
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