Abstract

This study is focused on one important phase of William James's philosophical enterprise; that is, his criticism of absolute idealism and British empiricism prevailing in his day. James's philosophical enterprise, in some sense, can be viewed as a series of battles against absolute idealism. During his battle, he stands on the side of empiricism. But he finds that British empiricism is too vulnerable to be a competent rival for absolute idealism, and that it requires some modifications. In rejecting absolute idealism and modifying British empiricism, James develops his own philosophy, and makes himself an original philosopher. The originality and significance of James's philosophy can be best understood in the context of contrasting it with its contemporary rivals. This is the intention of the present study. ;The monism of absolute idealism is the very adversary James criticizes. Among those absolute idealists criticized by James, Hegel, Royce, and Bradley are selected to be discussed in the second, third, and fourth chapters respectively. In the beginning of each chapter, some historical facts about James's criticism will be stated. Then the discussion follows the logical order of James's criticism. First, that the claim of absolute idealism is not a logical necessity, but one of possible hypotheses. Second, that absolute idealism is an improbable hypothesis because of its theoretical defects. Third, that it is improbable because of its practical or moral defects. ;Going back to perceptual life, British empiricism is on the right track for understanding reality. But it does not go far enough to find the fullness and self-sufficiency of perceptual life. It neglects the original continuity of perceptual experience and the activity of mind. James's criticism of British empiricism is discussed in the fifth chapter. ;The significance of James's philosophy, which is discussed in the final chapter, lies in its approaches; that is, the perceptual approach in his radical empiricism, and the prospective approach in his pragmatism and meliorism. And, the present writer believes, these approaches could be of persistent significance to every generation