This paper examines William James's philosophy of Pragmatism, focusing on his central claim that truth is determined by utility — the "cash value" of an idea in lived experience. Drawing on Soccio's commentary, the paper explores how James's pluralistic framework accommodates unconventional beliefs, such as astrology and religious experience, without demanding scientific verification. It also engages the "pragmatic paradox" — the tension inherent in believing ideas are useful without requiring them to be objectively true — and reflects on why James's tolerant, democracy-minded approach to truth remains philosophically appealing in a multicultural society.
William James offers a philosophy called Pragmatism that seems designed to steer between previous philosophical positions on what constitutes truth. For James, a thing is true insofar as it is useful. James referred — in what seems a self-consciously American way of speaking, not unlike Mark Twain — to the "cash value" of an idea. As James expounds it: "Pragmatism asks its usual question, 'Grant an idea or belief to be true… what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life?'"
This is where the applicability of William James's philosophy becomes particularly apparent. Pragmatism is not only concerned with uses; it is also concerned with maintaining a kind of "tough-minded" (in James's words) philosophical stance within "pluralism," or "the pluralistic universe," as James called it. This entails negotiating between multiple truth claims and selecting among them on the basis of utility — a process that leads to some fascinating positions that many readers find compelling.
What would William James say, for example, about reading one's horoscope every morning? As a child one might read a daily horoscope in the morning newspaper; as an adult, the same habit might continue via email from a free website. From the standpoint of science — or traditional philosophy — there is no "truth" to astrology. Yet William James would argue that if reading a horoscope allows someone to get a handle on their day, if it provides a sense of directionality or performs some other useful function in daily life, then one need not worry about the scientific status of astrological prognostication.
"James on religion beyond scientific verification"
"Tension between useful beliefs and objective truth"
I find James's basic philosophical stance to be quite attractive, largely on the basis of its Americanness. The respect for other people's religious beliefs — no matter how strange — and the insistence that each person may define truth through utility seems, to use James's own terminology, like a tough-minded pluralism: a philosophy designed to negotiate the broad religious and philosophical tolerance required in the multicultural nature of democracy. James's interest in religion — which steers clear of both dogma and orthodoxy, while not condescending to actual believers — is particularly admirable for exactly this reason.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.