William James is undoubtedly a great thinker. And he undoubtedly loves life, and loves mankind. This much is clear in his work - his sense of humor, insight, and approach to his topic are all evidence of this. James, however, cannot rightly be called a philosopher. While his ideas are insightful, and the abundance of them proves him a great thinker, his method of presentation and discussion falls short of the demanding science of western philosophy. James does not create a foundation of simple ideas and build upon them; he simply introduces a broad idea, and then does not even support it, but assumes that it is self evident.

Despite his flaws as a philosopher however, his work is a pleasure to read and, knowing its flaws, one can enjoy this book for what it is - a series of ideas and thoughts that do form a rather elegant approach to life, if not a true philosophy.

In his 1909 book Pragmatism, William James attempts to reconcile the grim eschatology of empiricism with the noble incentives of religion. James sets the stage by defining empiricists as "tough-minded" realists, deducing truth solely from material experience, and rationalists as "tender-minded" religious types, virtuous but prone to dogmatic thinking and an unverifiable belief in oneness. His answer to what he calls this "present dilemma of philosohy" is pragmatism, a bridging doctrine that seeks to value a "scientific loyatly to facts, and willingness to take account of them,...but also the old confidence in human values and the resultant spontaineity, whether of the relifious or of the romantic type." James posits that in order for truth to be truth, it must have "cash-value." He states, "The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons." Simply put, James feels strongly that there must be a verifiable correlation between what we believe and what we experience. A righteous starting point.
Pragmatism is a stimulating read, and with his background in psychology, James delves profoundly into the rationalizations of human thinking. Despite its bold statements, the book has a kindly tone, and the author's earnest attempts to convince are without academic snideness or scorn. But as perceptive as Pragmatism is at times, James inevitably comes off as just an empiricist with a heart, as sort of a materialist's "compassionate conservative." Robert Frost biographer Jay Parini says that James was "trying to have his cake and eat it too" and inconsistencies do arise. Although abhorring a priori reasoning, James writes in the last chapter, "In the end it is our faith and not our logic that decides such questions, and I deny the right of any pretended logic to veto my own faith."
As for reconciling empiricism with religion, James does so by what would be called in twenty-first century business-speak as "moving the goal posts." He refuses to consider salvation and truth as absolute or universal, but believes them to be melioristic, ever shifting and contingent of the efforts of men. James regards truth as more of a plastic process than a promise, and the belief in God as useful--if it has value. As straight forward and pragmatic as James aims to be, there seems to lie beneath his arguments the unsettling thought that religion is a self-duping but necessary enterprise--that religious faith is true only to the degree that it gives us moral support in a harsh empirical world. In the final analysis William James can't seem to shake the fervor of his age that empirical science would supply all the answers concerning truth and man.

Depending on who you ask, american philosophy is an oxymoron. But the pragmatic schools of James, Pierce, and Dewey are truly a challenging and significant to philosophy as a whole.

James has a very peculiar way of viewing experience, for a philosopher, and a sort of colossal respect for truth that rivals Kant's. This book approaches in a very systematic way the problems that we have dealing with truth and its inherent elusiveness. Both Empiricist and Rationalist philosophical attitudes run aground when dealing with reality; certain aspects of both are better at dealing with particular facets of experince. That is, some of the "work" better than other in certain situations. (As James notes, Hegel or Kant have done little to advance any scientific knowledge-- but a wholly empirical philosophy can give offer us no end to strive towards that we will find humanly compelling) James makes the middle road between the two, and offers the philosphically radical suggestion that the closest to any "Truth" as a big T we are going to get is going to be through our examination of how particular notions of truth produce for us better explanations of experience. In fact (as James later elaborates) the best philosophy we can find is one that will be able to unstiffen the mind an be able to deal with various different truths. Plural.

If you can't see from this outlook, James's notion of philosophy is profoundly democratic. His philosophy is one of the best attempts I've ever encountered to form some sort of coherent system that accomodates mutually exclusive forms of truth. And such a system, also, is American Democracy.

The reviewers below fall into an error on this account by saying James apologizes for scoundrels. He does not; in fact, he was thoroughly anti-imperialist and in case we havn't noticed Nazism and Stalinism are systems built on Monistic systems of Truth. Look it up. Read the book, it's a classic, maybe the classic, of American Philosophy. A fitting testament to james' enduring genius