Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking
by William James, 1907
Lecture IV: The One and the Many
We saw in the last lecture that the pragmatic method, in its dealings with certain
concepts, instead of ending with admiring contemplation, plunges forward into the river of
experience with them and prolongs the perspective by their means. Design, free-will, the
absolute mind, spirit instead of matter, have for their sole meaning a better promise as
to this world's outcome. Be they false or be they true, the meaning of them is this
meliorism. I have sometimes thought of the phenomenon called 'total reflexion' in optics
as a good symbol of the relation between abstract ideas and concrete realities, as
pragmatism conceives it. Hold a tumbler of water a little above your eyes and look up
through the water at its surface -or better still look similarly through the flat wall of
an aquarium. You will then see an extraordinarily brilliant reflected image say of a
candle-flame, or any other clear object, situated on the opposite side of the vessel. No
candle-ray, under these circumstances gets beyond the water's surface: every ray is
totally reflected back into the depths again. Now let the water represent the world of
sensible facts, and let the air above it represent the world of abstract ideas. Both
worlds are real, of course, and interact; but they interact only at their boundary, and
the locus of everything that lives, and happens to us, so far as full experience goes, is
the water. We are like fishes swimming in the sea of sense, bounded above by the superior
element, but unable to breathe it pure or penetrate it. We get our oxygen from it,
however, we touch it incessantly, no", in this part, now in that, and every time we
touch it, we are reflected back into the water with our course redetermined and
re-energized. The abstract ideas of which the air consists are indispensable for life, but
irrespirable by themselves, as it were, and only active in their redirecting function. All
similes are halting, but this one rather takes my fancy. It shows how something, not
sufficient for life in itself, may nevertheless be an effective determinant of life
elsewhere.
In this present hour I wish to illustrate the pragmatic method by one more application.
I wish to turn its light upon the ancient problem of 'the one and the many.' I suspect
that in but few of you has this problem occasioned sleepless nights, and I should not be
astonished if some of you told me it had never vexed you. I myself have come, by long
brooding over it, to consider it the most central of all philosophic problems, central
because so pregnant. I mean by this that if you know whether a man is a decided monist or
a decided pluralist, you perhaps know more about the rest of his opinions than if you give
him any other name ending in ist. To believe in the one or in the many, that is the classification with the maximum number of consequences. So bear with me for an hour while I try to inspire you with my own interest in this problem.
Philosophy has often been defined as the quest or the vision of the world's unity. We
never hear this definition challenged, and it is true as far as it goes, for philosophy
has indeed manifested above all things its interest in unity. But how about the variety
in things? Is that such an irrelevant matter? If instead of using the term
philosophy, we talk in general of our intellect and its needs, we quickly see that unity
is only one of these. Acquaintance with the details of fact is always reckoned, along with
their reduction to system, as an indispensable mark of mental greatness. Your 'scholarly'
mind, of encyclopedic, philological type, your man essentially of learning, has never
lacked for praise along with your philosopher. What our intellect really aims at is
neither variety nor unity taken singly, but totality. In this, acquaintance with reality's diversities is as important as understanding their connexion. The human passion of curiosity runs on all fours with the systematizing passion.
In spite of this obvious fact the unity of things has always been considered more
illustrious, as it were, than their variety. When a young man first conceives the notion
that the whole world forms one great fact, with all its parts moving abreast, as it were,
and interlocked, he feels as if he were enjoying a great insight, and looks superciliously
on all who still fall short of this sublime conception. Taken thus abstractly as it first
comes to one, the monistic insight is so vague as hardly to seem worth defending
intellectually. Yet probably everyone in this audience in some way cherishes it. A certain
abstract monism, a certain emotional response to the character of oneness, as if it were a
feature of the world not coordinate with its manyness, but vastly more excellent and
eminent, is so prevalent in educated circles that we might almost call it a part of philosophic common sense. Of course the world is one, we say. How else could it be a world at all? Empiricists as a rule, are as stout monists of this abstract kind as rationalists are.
The difference is that the empiricists are less dazzled. Unity doesn't blind them to
everything else, doesn't quench their curiosity for special facts, whereas there is a kind
of rationalist who is sure to interpret abstract unity mystically and to forget everything
else, to treat it as a principle; to admire and worship it; and thereupon to come to a
full stop intellectually.
'The world is One!'- the formula may become a sort of numberworship. 'Three' and
'seven' have, it is true, been reckoned sacred numbers; but, abstractly taken, why is
'one' more excellent than 'fortythree,' or than 'two million and ten'? In this first vague
conviction of the world's unity, there is so little to take hold of that we hardly know
what we mean by it.
The only way to get forward with our notion is to treat it pragmatically. Granting the
oneness to exist, what facts will be different in consequence? What will the unity be
known-as? The world is one - yes, but how one? What is the practical value of the oneness
for us?
Asking such questions, we pass from the vague to the definite, from the abstract to the
concrete. Many distinct ways in which a oneness predicated of the universe might make a
difference, come to view. I will note successively the more obvious of these ways.
1. First, the world is at least one subject of discourse. If its manyness were
so irremediable as to permit no union whatever of its parts, not even our minds
could 'mean' the whole of it at once: they would be like eyes trying to look in opposite
directions. But in point of fact we mean to cover the whole of it by our abstract term
'world' or 'universe,' which expressly intends that no part shall be left out. Such unity
of discourse carries obviously no farther monistic specifications. A 'chaos,' once so
named, has as much unity of discourse as a cosmos. It is an odd fact that many monists
consider a great victory scored for their side when pluralists say 'the universe is many.'
" 'The universe'!" they chuckle -"his speech bewrayeth him. He stands
confessed of monism out of his own mouth." Well, let things be one in that sense! You
can then fling such a word as universe at the whole collection of them, but what matters
it? It still remains to be ascertained whether they are one in any other sense that is
more valuable.
2. Are they, for example, continuous? Can you pass from one to another,
keeping always in your one universe without any danger of falling out? In other words, do
the parts of our universe hang together, instead of being like detached grains of
sand? Even grains of sand hang together through the space in which they are embedded,
and if you can in any way move through such space, you can pass continuously from number
one of them to number two. Space and time are thus vehicles of continuity by which the
world's parts hang together. The practical difference to us, resultant from these forms of
union, is immense. Our whole motor life is based upon them.
3. There are innumerable other paths of practical continuity among things. Lines of influence
can be traced by which they hang together. Following any such line you pass from one
thing to another till you may have covered a good part of the universe's extent. Gravity
and heat conduction are such all-uniting influences, so far as the physical world goes
Electric, luminous and chemical influences follow similar lines of influence. But opaque
and inert bodies interrupt the continuity here, so that you have to step round them, or
change your mode of progress if you wish to get farther on that day. Practically, you have
then lost your universe's unity, so far as it was constituted by those first lines of
influence.
There are innumerable kinds of connexion that special things have with other special
things; and the ensemble of any one of these connexions forms one sort of system
by which things are conjoined. Thus men are conjoined in a vast network of acquaintanceship.
Brown knows Jones, Jones knows Robinson, etc.; and by choosing your farther
intermediaries rightly you may carry a message from Jones to the Empress of China, or
the Chief of the African Pigmies, or to anyone else in the inhabited world. But you are
stopped short, as by a non-conductor, when you choose one man wrong in this experiment.
What may be called love-systems are grafted on the acquaintance-system. A loves (or hates)
B; B loves (or hates) C, etc. But these systems are smaller than the great
acquaintance-system that they presuppose.
Human efforts are daily unifying the world more and more in definite systematic ways.
We found colonial, postal, consular, commercial systems, all the parts of which obey
definite influences that propagate themselves within the system but not to facts outside
of it. The result is innumerable little hangings-together of the world's parts within the
larger hangings-together, little worlds, not only of discourse but of operation, within
the wider universe. Each system exemplifies one type or grade of union, its parts being
strung on that peculiar kind of relation, and the same part may figure in many different
systems, as a man may hold several offices and belong to various clubs. From this
'systematic' point of view, therefore, the pragmatic value of the world's unity is that
all these definite networks actually and practically exist. Some are more enveloping and
extensive, some less so; they are superposed upon each other; and between them all they
let no individual elementary part of the universe escape. Enormous as is the amount of disconnexion among things (for these systematic influences and conjunctions follow rigidly exclusive paths), everything
that exists is influenced in some way by something else, if you can only pick the
way out rightly. Loosely speaking, and in general, it may be said that all things cohere
and adhere to each other somehow, and that the universe exists practically in
reticulated or concatenated forms which make of it a continuous or 'integrated' affair.
Any kind of influence whatever helps to make the world one, so far as you can follow it
from next to next. You may then say that 'the world is One'- meaning in these respects,
namely, and just so far as they obtain. But just as definitely is it not one, so
far as they do not obtain; and there is no species of connexion which will not fall, if,
instead of choosing conductors for it, you choose non-conductors. You are then arrested at
your very first step and have to write the world down as a pure many from that
particular point of view. If our intellect had been as much interested in disjunctive as
it is in conjunctive relations, philosophy would have equally successfully celebrated the
world's disunion.
The great point is to notice that the oneness and the manyness are absolutely
co-ordinate here. Neither is primordial or more essential or excellent than the other.
just as with space, whose separating of things seems exactly on a par with its uniting of
them, but sometimes one function and sometimes the other is what comes home to us most,
so, in our general dealings with the world of influences, we now need conductors and now
need non-conductors, and wisdom lies in knowing which is which at the appropriate moment.
4. All these systems of influence or non-influence may be listed under the general
problem of the world's causal unity. If the minor causal influences among things should
converge towards one common causal origin of them in the past, one great first cause for
all that is, one might then speak of the absolute causal unity of the world. God's fiat on
creation's day has figured in traditional philosophy as such an absolute cause and origin.
Transcendental Idealism, translating 'creation' into 'thinking' (or 'willing to think')
calls the divine act 'eternal' rather than first'; but the union of the many here is
absolute, just the same -the many would not be, save for the One. Against this notion of
the unity of origin of all things there has always stood the pluralistic notion of ail
eternal self-existing many in the shape of atoms or even of spiritual units of some sort.
The alternative has doubtless a pragmatic meaning, but perhaps, as far as these lectures
go, we had better leave the question of unity of origin unsettled.
5. The most important sort of union that obtains among things, pragmatically speaking, is their generic unity. Things exist in kinds, there are many specimens in each kind, and what the 'kind' implies for one specimen, it
implies also for every other specimen of that kind. We can easily conceive that every fact
in the world might be singular, that is, unlike any other fact and sole of its kind. In
such a world of singulars our logic would be useless, for logic works by predicating of
the single instance what is true of all kind. With no two things alike in the world, we
should be unable to reason from our past experiences to our future ones. The existence of
so much generic unity in things is thus perhaps the most momentous pragmatic specification
of what it may mean to say 'the world is One. 'Absolute generic unity would obtain if
there were one summum genus under which all things without exception could be
eventually subsumed. 'Beings,' 'thinkables,''experiences,' would be candidates for this
position. Whether the alternatives expressed by such words have any pragmatic significance
or not, is another question which I prefer to leave unsettled just now.
6. Another specification of what the phrase 'the world is One' may mean is unity of purpose.
An enormous number of things in the world subserve a common purpose. All the man-made
systems, administrative, industrial, military, or what not, exist each for its controlling
purpose. Every living being pursues its own peculiar purposes. They cooperate, according
to the degree of their development, in collective or tribal purposes, larger ends thus
enveloping lesser ones, until an absolutely single, final and climacteric purpose
subserved by all things without exception might conceivably be reached. It is needless to
say that the appearances conflict with such a view. Any resultant, as I said in my third
lecture, may have been purposed in advance, but none of the results we actually know in
this world have in point of fact been purposed in advance in all their details. Men and
nations start with a vague notion of being rich, or great, or good. Each step they make
brings unforeseen chances into sight, and shuts out older vistas, and the specifications
of the general purpose have to be daily changed. What is reached in the end may be better
or worse than what was proposed, but it is always more complex and different.
Our different purposes also are at war with each other. Where one can't crush the other
out, they compromise, and the result is again different from what anyone distinctly
proposed beforehand. Vaguely and generally, much of what was purposed may be gained; but
everything makes strongly for the view that our world is incompletely unified
teleologically and is still trying to get its unification better organized.
Whoever claims absolute teleological unity, saying that there is one purpose
that every detail of the universe subserves, dogmatizes at his own risk. Theologians who
dogmatize thus find it more and more impossible, as our acquaintance with the warring
interests of the world's parts grows More concrete, to imagine what the one climacteric
purpose may possibly be like. We see indeed that certain evils minister to ulterior goods,
that the bitter makes the cocktail better, and that a bit of danger or hardship puts us
agreeably to our trumps. We can vaguely generalize this into the doctrine that all the
evil in the universe is but instrumental to its greater perfection. But the scale of the
evil actually in sight defies all human tolerance; and transcendental idealism, in the
pages of a Bradley or a Royce, brings us no farther than the book of Job did - God's ways are not our ways, so let us put our hands upon our mouth. A God who can relish such
superfluities of horror is no God for human beings to appeal to. His animal spirits are
too high, his practical jokes too monstrous. In other words the 'Absolute' with his one
purpose, is not the man-like God of common people.
7. Aesthetic union among things also obtains, and is very analogous to
teleological union. Things tell a story. Their parts hang together so as to work out a
climax. They play into each other's hands expressively. Retrospectively, we can see that
altho no definite purpose presided over a chain of events, yet the events fell into a
dramatic form, with a start, a middle, and a finish. In point of fact all stories end; and
here again the point of view of a many is the more natural one to take. The world is full
of partial stories that run parallel to one another, beginning and ending at odd times.
They mutually interlace and interfere at points, but we cannot unify them completely in
our minds. In following your life-history, I must temporarily turn my attention from my
own. Even a biographer of twins would have to press them alternately upon his reader's
attention.
It follows that whoever says that the whole world tells one story utters another of
those monistic dogmas that a man believes at his risk. It is easy to see the world's
history pluralistically, as a rope of which each fibre tells a separate tale; but to
conceive of each cross-section of the rope as an absolutely single fact, and to sum the
whole longitudinal series into one being living an undivided life, is harder. We have
indeed the analogy of embryology to help us. The microscopist makes a hundred flat
cross-sections of a given embryo, and mentally unites them into one solid whole. But the
great world's ingredients, so far as they are beings, seem, like the rope's fibres, to be
discontinuous cross-wise, and to cohere only in the longitudinal direction. Followed in
that direction they are many. Even the embryologist, when he follows the development of his object, has to treat the history of each single organ in turn. Absolute
aesthetic union is thus another barely abstract ideal. The world appears as something more
epic than dramatic.
So far, then, we see how the world is unified by its many systems, kinds, purposes, and
dramas. That there is more union in all these ways than openly appears is certainly true.
That there may be one sovereign purpose, system, kind, and story, is a legitimate
hypothesis. All I say here is that it is rash to affirm this dogmatically without better
evidence than we possess at present.
8. The great monistic denkmittel for a hundred years past has been the notion
of the one Knower. The many exist only as objects for his thought -exist in his dream, as
it were; and as he knows them, they have one purpose, form one system, tell one tale for
him. This notion of an all-enveloping noetic unity in things is the sublimest achievement
of intellectualist philosophy. Those who believe in the Absolute, as the all knower is
termed, usually say that they do so for coercive reasons, which clear thinkers cannot
evade. The Absolute has far-reaching practical consequences, to some of which I drew
attention in my second lecture. Many kinds of difference important to us would surely
follow from its being true. I cannot here enter into all the logical proofs of such a
Being's existence, farther than to say that none of them seem to me sound. I must
therefore treat the notion of an All-Knower simply as an hypothesis, exactly on a par
logically with the pluralist notion that there is no point of view, no focus of
information extant, from which the entire content of the universe is visible at once.
"God's consciousness," says Professor Royce, "forms in
its wholeness one luminously transparent conscious moment" -this is the type of
noetic unity on which rationalism insists. Empiricism on the other hand is satisfied with
the type of noetic unity that is humanly familiar. Everything gets known by some knower
along with something else; but the knowers may in the end be irreducibly many, and the
greatest knower of them all may yet not know the whole of everything, or even know what he
does know at one single stroke - he may be liable to forget. Whichever type obtained, the
world would still be a universe noetically. Its parts would be conjoined by knowledge, but
in the one case the knowledge would be absolutely unified, in the other it would be strung
along and overlapped.
The notion of one instantaneous or eternal Knower - either adjective here means the
same thing-is, as I said, the great intellectualist achievement of our time. It has
practically driven out that conception 'Substance' which earlier philosophers set such store by, and by which so much unifying work used to be done -universal substance which alone has being in and from
itself, and of which all the particulars of experience are but forms to which it gives
support. Substance has succumbed to the pragmatic criticisms of the English school. It
appears now only as another name for the fact that phenomena as they come are actually
grouped and given in coherent forms, the very forms in which we finite knowers experience
or think them together. These forms of conjunction are as much parts of the tissue of
experience as are the terms which they connect; and it is a great pragmatic achievement
for recent idealism to have made the world hang together in these directly representable
ways instead of drawing its unity from the 'inherence' of its parts - whatever that may
mean - in an unimaginable principle behind the scenes.
'The world is one,' therefore, just so far as we experience it to be concatenated, one
by as many definite conjunctions as appear. But then also not one by just as many definite
disjunctions as we find. The oneness and the manyness of it thus obtain in respects which
can be separately named. It is neither a universe pure and simple nor a multiverse pure
and simple. And its various manners of being one suggest, for their accurate
ascertainment, so many distinct Programs of scientific work. Thus the pragmatic question
'What is the oneness known-as? What practical difference will it make?' saves us from all
feverish excitement over it as a principle of sublimity and carries us forward into the
stream of experience with a cool head. The stream may indeed reveal far more connexion and
union than we now suspect, but we are not entitled on pragmatic principles to claim
absolute oneness in any respect in advance.
It is so difficult to see definitely what absolute oneness can mean, that probably the
majority of you are satisfied with the sober attitude which we have reached. Nevertheless
there are possibly some radically monistic souls among you who are not content to leave
the one and the many on a par. Union of various grades, union of diverse types, union that
stops at non-conductors, union that merely goes from next to next, and means in many cases
outer nextness only, and not a more internal bond, union of concatenation, in short: all
that sort of thing seems to you a halfway stage of thought. The oneness of things,
superior to their manyness, you think must also be more deeply true, must be the more real
aspect of the world. The pragmatic view, you are sure, gives us a universe imperfectly
rational. The real universe must form an unconditional unit of being, something
consolidated, with its parts co-implicated through and through. Only then could we
consider our estate completely rational.
There is no doubt whatever that this ultra-monistic way of thinking means a great deal
to many minds. "One Life, One Truth, one Love, one Principle, One Good, One
God"-I quote from a Christian Science leaflet which the day's mail brings into my
hands-beyond doubt such a confession of faith has pragmatically an emotional value, and
beyond doubt the word 'one' contributes to the value quite as much as the other words. But
if we try to realize intellectually what we can possibly mean by such a
glut of oneness we are thrown right back upon our pragmatistic determinations again. It
means either the mere name One, the universe of discourse; or it means the sum total of
all the ascertainable particular conjunctions and concatenations; or, finally, it means
some one vehicle of conjunction treated as all-inclusive, like one origin, one purpose, or
one knower. In point of fact it always means one knower to those who take it
intellectually to-day. The one knower involves, they think, the other forms of
conjunction. His world must have all its parts co-implicated in the one
logical-aesthetical-teleologicaI unit-picture which is his eternal dream.
The character of the absolute knower's picture is however so impossible for us to
represent clearly, that we may fairly suppose that the authority which absolute monism
undoubtedly possesses, and probably always will possess over some persons, draws its
strength far less from intellectual than from mystical grounds. To interpret absolute
monism worthily, be a mystic. Mystical states of mind in every degree are shown by
history, usually tho not always, to make for the monistic view. This is no proper occasion
to enter upon the general subject of mysticism, but I will quote one mystical
pronouncement to show just what I mean. The paragon of all monistic systems is the Vedanta
philosophy of Hindostan, and the paragon of Irredentist missionaries was the late Swami
Vivekananda who visited our shores some years ago. The method of Vedantism is the
mystical method. You do not reason, but after going through a certain discipline you see,
and having seen, you can report the truth. Vivekananda thus reports the truth in one
of his lectures here:
"Where is any more misery for him who sees this Oneness in the Universe ... this
Oneness of life, Oneness of everything? ... This separation between man and man, man and
woman, man and child, nation from nation, earth from moon, moon from sun, this separation
between atom and atom is the cause really of all the misery, and the Vedanta says this
separation does not exist, it is not real. It is merely apparent, on the surface. In the
heart of things there is Unity still. If you go inside you find that Unity between man and
man, women and children, races and races, high and low, rich and poor, the gods and men: all are
One, and animals too, if you go deep enough, and he who has attained to that has no more
delusion.... Where is any more delusion for him? What can delude him? He knows the reality
of everything, the secret of everything. Where is there any more misery for him? What does
he desire? He has traced the reality of everything unto the Lord, that centre, that Unity
of everything, and that is Eternal Bliss, Eternal Knowledge, Eternal Existence. Neither
death nor disease, nor sorrow nor misery, nor discontent is there ... in the centre, the
reality, there is no one to be mourned for, no one to be sorry for. He has penetrated
everything, the Pure One, the Formless, the Bodiless, the Stainless, He the Knower, He the
Great Poet, the Self-Existent, He who is giving to everyone what he deserves."
Observe how radical the character of the monism here is. Separation is not simply
overcome by the One, it is denied to exist. There is no many. We are not parts of the One;
It has no parts; and since in a sense we undeniably are, it must be that each of
us is the One, indivisibly and totally. An Absolute One, and I that One - surely we
have here a religion which, emotionally considered, has a high pragmatic value; it imparts
a perfect sumptuosity of security. As our Swami says in another place:
"When man has seen himself as one with the infinite Being of the universe, when
all separateness has ceased, when all men, all women, all angels, all gods, all animals,
all plants, the whole universe has been melted into that oneness, then all fear
disappears. Whom to fear? Can I hurt myself? Can I kill myself? Can I injure myself? Do
you fear yourself? Then will all sorrow disappear. What can cause me sorrow? I am the One
Existence of the universe. Then all jealousies will disappear; of whom to be jealous? Of
myself? Then all bad feelings disappear. Against whom will I have this bad feeling?
Against myself? There is none in the universe but me.... Kill out this differentiation;
kill out this superstition that there are many. 'He who, in this world of many, sees that
One; he who in this mass of insentiency sees that One Sentient Being; he who in this world
of shadow catches that Reality, unto him belongs eternal peace, unto none else, unto none
else! "
We all have some ear for this monistic music: it elevates and reassures. We all have at
least the germ of mysticism in us. And when our idealists recite their arguments for the
Absolute, saying that the slightest union admitted anywhere carries logically absolute
Oneness with it, and that the slightest separation admitted anywhere logically carries
disunion remediless and complete, I cannot help suspecting that the palpable weak places
in the intellectual reasonings they use are protected from their own criticism by a
mystical feeling that, logic or no logic, absolute Oneness must somehow at any cost be true. Oneness overcomes moral separateness at any rate. In the passion of love we have the mystic germ of what might mean a total union of all sentient life. This mystical germ wakes up in us on hearing the monistic
utterances, acknowledges their authority, and assigns to intellectual considerations a
secondary place.
I will dwell no longer on these religious and moral aspects of the question in this
lecture. When I come to my final lecture there will be something more to say.
Leave then out of consideration for the moment the authority which mystical insights
may be conjectured eventually to possess; treat the problem of the One and the Many in a
purely intellectual way; and we see clearly enough where pragmatism stands. With her
criterion of the practical differences that theories make, we see that she must equally
abjure absolute monism and absolute pluralism. The world is one just so far as its parts
hang together by any definite connexion. It is many just so far as any definite connexion
fails to obtain. And finally it is growing more and more unified by those systems of
connexion at least which human energy keeps framing as time goes on.
It is possible to imagine alternative universes to the one we know, in which the most
various grades and types of union should be embodied. Thus the lowest grade of universe
would be a world of mere withness, of which the parts were only strung together
by the conjunction 'and! Such a universe is even now the collection of our several inner
lives. The spaces and times of your imagination, the objects and events of your
day-dreams are not only more or less incoherent inter se, but are wholly out of
definite relation with the similar contents of anyone else's mind. Our various
reveries now as we sit here compenetrate each other idly without influencing or
interfering. They coexist, but in no order and in no receptacle, being the nearest
approach to an absolute 'many' that we can conceive. We cannot even imagine any reason why
they should be known all together, and we can imagine even less, if they were
known together, how they could be known as one systematic whole.
But add our sensations and bodily actions, and the union mounts to a much higher grade.
Our audita et visa and our acts fall into those receptacles of time and space in
which each event finds its date and place. They form 'things' and are of 'kinds' too, and
can be classed. Yet we can imagine a world of things and of kinds in which the causal
interactions with which we are so familiar should not exist. Everything there might be
inert towards everything else, and refuse to propagate its influence. Or gross mechanical influences might pass, but no chemical action. Such worlds would be far less unified than ours. Again there might be complete physico-chemical interaction, but no minds; or minds, but altogether private ones, with no social life- or social life limited to acquaintance, but no love; or love, but no customs or institutions
that should systematize it. No one of these grades of universe would be absolutely
irrational or disintegrated, inferior tho it might appear when looked at from the higher
grades. For instance, if our minds should ever become 'telepathically' connected,
so that we knew immediately, or could under certain conditions know immediately, each what
the other was thinking, the world we now live in would appear to the thinkers in that
world to have been of an inferior grade.
With the whole of past eternity open for our conjectures to range in, it may be lawful
to wonder whether the various kinds of union now realized in the universe that we inhabit
may not possibly have been successively evolved after the fashion in which we now see
human systems evolving in consequence of human needs. If such an hypothesis were
legitimate, total oneness would appear at the end of things rather than at their origin.
In other words the notion of the 'Absolute' would have to be replaced by that of the
'Ultimate.' The two notions would have the same content-the maximally unified content of
fact, namely -but their time-relations would be positively reversed.
After discussing the unity of the universe in this pragmatic way, you ought to see why
I said in my second lecture, borrowing the word from my friend G. Papini, that pragmatism tends to unstiffen all our theories. The world's oneness has generally been affirmed abstractly only, and as if anyone who questioned it must be an idiot. The temper of monists has been so vehement, as almost at times to be convulsive; and this way of holding a doctrine does riot easily go with reasonable discussion and the drawing of
distinctions. The theory of the Absolute, in particular, has had to be an article of
faith, affirmed dogmatically and exclusively. The One and All, first in the order of being
and of knowing, logically necessary itself, and uniting all lesser things in the bonds of
mutual necessity, how could it allow of any mitigation of its inner rigidity? The
slightest suspicion of pluralism, the minutest wiggle of interdependence of any one of its
parts from the control of the totality, would ruin it. Absolute unity brooks no degrees-as
well might you claim absolute purity for a glass of water because it contains but a single
little cholera-germ. The independence, however infinitesimal, of a part, however small, would be
to the Absolute as fatal as a cholera-germ.
Pluralism on the other hand has no need of this dogmatic rigoristic temper. Provided
you grant some separation among things, some tremor of independence, some free play of
parts on one another, some real novelty or chance, however minute, she is amply satisfied,
and will allow you any amount, however great, of real union. How much of union there may
be is a question that she thinks can only be decided empirically. The amount may be
enormous, colossal; but absolute monism is shattered if, along with all the union, there
has to be granted the slightest modicum, the most incipient nascency, or the most residual
trace, of a separation that is not 'overcome.'
Pragmatism, pending the final empirical ascertainment of just what the balance of union
and disunion among things may be, must obviously range herself upon the pluralistic side.
Some day, she admits, even total union, with one knower, one origin, and a universe
consolidated in every conceivable way, may turn out to be the most acceptable of all
hypotheses. Meanwhile the opposite hypothesis, of a world imperfectly unified still, and
perhaps always to remain so, must be sincerely entertained. This latter hypothesis is
pluralism's doctrine. Since absolute monism forbids its being even considered seriously,
branding it as irrational from the start, it is clear that pragmatism must turn its back
on absolute monism, and follow pluralism's more empirical path.
This leaves us with the common-sense world, in which we find things partly joined and
partly disjoined. 'Things,' then, and their 'conjunctions'- what do such words mean,
pragmatically handled? In my next lecture, I will apply the pragmatic method to the stage
of philosophizing known as Common Sense.
William James. Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Published in New York by Longman Green and Co. (1907). The text of this document is in the public domain and reproducible without permissiosn.