A Letter to William James (The Pragmatic Philosopher)

A Letter to William James (The Pragmatic Philosopher)

Dear Mr. James,

First of all, let me introduce myself as one of the greatest admirer of the pragmatism as an essential and important school of philosophy. I am a great supporter of this school and simultaneously a great admirer of the philosophical view that you hold. I have been truly mesmerized by the point of view that you have revealed regarding the objectivity of truth and its ever-changing nature. It has been a great opportunity for me to go through your works and understand the fact that there is no such thing called an absolute and fixed truth.

I must convey that I had been thinking of writing this letter to you just after participating in a debate session in which my opponents were holding strongly the view that William James view on truth is erroneous. I vehemently disagreed with this view because I have all the faith in your viewpoint of the transforming and dynamic nature of truth. I do agree with your claim that truth is dynamic and hence, truth cannot be static. This viewpoint of yours should not be treated as anything wrong or new because as per my knowledge the theory of impermanence of truth has been there in the Buddhist theories too. The Buddhists philosophy is based on the theory of impermanence of things and it also include the impermanence of truth. You have justifiably advocated the view under the light of modern philosophical analysis. I don’t know why the opponents of your theory are not ready to understand a simple truth that whatever is true for now can change in the future. It was with the view of refuting such opposition that in a certain debate session I argued that if it is true that this year my age is 33 then the next year the truth will change into 34. So, just like age, the perspective of truth also changes.

Moreover, it is not only in respect of the dynamic and pragmatic theory of truth that I admire and agree with you but I do revere you for your painstaking effort to make people like us understand that basic difference between truth and knowledge. Knowledge can be gained either by intuition in a directly experiential manner or through a cluster of physical or mental agents that are responsible for connecting our thought and the thing about which we are rendering the thought. And if one can understand the basic difference between the two modes of knowing then it can become easier for the person to accept the dynamic nature of truth. Anything that I hold as a truth about a thing relying on my direct experience or intuition may not be the truth for another person who has gained the knowledge of the same thing through the second mode of acquiring knowledge. So, judging from this angle too I must admit that your theory is flawless. I was really enthralled to learn more about your theory of truth and I was mesmerized to learn how truthful is the fact that all truth is useful and if a belief is not useful then such belief cannot be stated as true. We, the human beings, for different purposes and for adapting to different situations hold some beliefs to be true according to their usefulness and but if such belief in reality is useless then there is no use of considering such belief to be true. You have really explained such a complex concept in a very lucid manner and that is another reason why I got so influenced by your theory and by your approach.

I do believe that your theory is irrefutable because it is thoroughly logical. Believe me, I am not merely appeasing you but I am actually trying to convey the feelings of my heart through this letter. Being a rational human being I must admire your metaphor in which you have compared the value of true knowledge with the value of banking operations. It is through such depiction that you have rightly proved that truth must be expedient and it must have some utility, and without utility, there can be no truth. Moreover, I think that as utility changes according to time and situation, truth must have to be something which should not be dynamic. So, from this perspective too, I do admire your theory.

An eminent philosopher like you might think it unworthy to devote your valuable time in perusing my letter and that is the reason why before stopping my pen I just want to thank you for enlightening individuals like me about the true nature of truth and about the fact that in reality there is a close relation between truth and utility and that to be useful truth has to be something that is dynamic and not stagnant.

Sincerely,

(803 words)

References

Gustafson, A. (1998). A Pragmatic Response to Moore’s Critique of James. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from http://www.andygustafson.net/academic/more%20old%20papers/A%20Pragmatic%20%20response%20to%20G.E.Moore.doc

Weed, L.E. (2008). The Concept of Truth that Matters. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from http://williamjamesstudies.org/3.1/weed.html