At Columbia University in 1906, William James gave a highly confrontational speech to the American Philosophical Association (APA). He ignored the technical philosophical questions the audience had gathered to discuss and instead addressed the topic of human energy. Tramping on the rules of academic decorum, James invoked the work of amateurs, read testimonials on the benefits of yoga and alcohol, and concluded by urging his listeners to take up this psychological and physiological problem. What was the goal of this unusual (...) speech? Rather than an oddity, Francesca Bordogna asserts that the APA address was emblematic—it was just one of many gestures that James employed as he plowed through the barriers between academic, popular, and pseudoscience, as well as the newly emergent borders between the study of philosophy, psychology, and the “science of man.” Bordogna reveals that James’s trespassing of boundaries was an essential element of a broader intellectual and social project. By crisscrossing divides, she argues, James imagined a new social configuration of knowledge, a better society, and a new vision of the human self. As the academy moves toward an increasingly interdisciplinary future, William James at the Boundaries reintroduces readers to a seminal influence on the way knowledge is pursued. (shrink)

This paper studies the constellations of attitudes––sentimental, moral, epistemological, and social––that three leading psychologists active in turn-of-the-twentieth-century America took to be essential to the production of scientific knowledge. William James, G. Stanley Hall, and Edward Titchener located the virtues and traits proper to the scientific frame of mind, and combined them into normative images of the man of science, or, ‘scientific personae’ as I use the term here. I argue that their competing formulations of the scientific ethos informed their psychological (...) practice and epistemological commitments. James, Hall, and Titchener mobilized their representations of the man of science in order to reconfigure the field of psychology and redefine its boundaries, as well as to promote forms of sociability and define the proper role of scientists both within the academy and in the wider polity. (shrink)

Comments on G. Maddalena and G. Tuzet, editors, I Pragmatisti Italiani. Tra Alleati e Nemeci (Italian Pragmatists. Between Enemies and Allies). Milano: Albo Versorio, 2007.

In February 1907 Giovanni Papini wrote on Leonardo that “Pragmatism” did not exist; there were “only pragmatist theories and more or less pragmatist thinkers.” Rather than “a nice system born out of the brain of a single philosopher” or of “an homogeneous school,” pragmatism was “a coalition of theories of various origins and nature.” The rich pragmatist genealogy offered by Il pragmatismo. Dalle origini agli sviluppi contemporanei, edited by Rosa M. Calcaterra, Giovanni Maddalena and Giancar...

Free Will and the Human Sciences in Britain, 1870–1910, and Between Mind and Nature, both published in 2013, illustrate a claim dear to Roger Smith: namely, that history—including history of the human sciences—is central to the human sciences. Free Will charts a wide range of conceptions of the will, power, agency, activity, the self, and character, as well as causality, necessity, determinism, and materialism. Victorian physicians, physiologists, scientific and philosophical psychologists, and philosophers, as well as (though that is not the (...) distinctive focus of the book) novelists, politicians, and ordinary men and women combined those ideas in complex ways, at times merging together questions and concepts that we, instead, tend to separate (e.g., the question of the freedom of the will and the question of its efficacy). As Smith reminds us, the will attained unprecedented salience in a culture that made it into the “base of character” and, largely unable to theorize social agency, made character into “the pivot of personal relations and politics” (Free Will, pp. 8, 10). After analyzing arguments about automatism and free will (Ch. 2), Smith turns to intellectual debates on the nature of volition, mental activity, and causality. He highlights the links between those debates, arguments concerning “the form of knowledge found in the natural sciences,” and debates concerning the identity of psychology and history as sciences. The central chapters are largely organized on the basis of the actors’ distinction between “empiricists” (e.g., J. S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, and Shadworth Hodgson) and “idealists” (e.g., Francis Bradley, James Ward, and, for his theory of knowledge, G. F. Stout). In general, empiricists tended to deny the commonsense perception of the will as an actual agent (a power), endowed with substantive reality and freedom. They also tended to allow only Humean causes and to deny the existence of “efficient causes” (that is, in Thomas Reid’s terminology, causes understood as real agents; ibid., p. 83). Idealists, instead, usually rejected Hume’s constant conjunction account of causality and inclined to view the “individual will” as “the agent of spirit in the world” (ibid., p. 66). However, Smith persuasively shows that the divides between the two camps were far more fluid than is usually thought, allowing for many exceptions and surprising convergences between self-avowed idealists and empiricists. (shrink)