A Pluralistic Universe · Chapter
Lecture II: Monistic Idealism explained
James contrasts monistic idealism (the 'all-form') with pluralistic radical empiricism (the 'each-form'), arguing that the absolute all-one leaves us as foreign to the divine as dualistic theism does.
What happens
James contrasts monistic idealism (the 'all-form') with pluralistic radical empiricism (the 'each-form'), arguing that the absolute all-one leaves us as foreign to the divine as dualistic theism does. He critiques the logical arguments for monism, particularly Lotze's proof from interaction, as merely verbal. He defends the each-form as offering greater intimacy with reality and a more reasonable, though less aesthetically neat, picture of the universe.
Themes in this chapter
Pluralism vs. Monism
Central to the chapter: James contrasts the 'all-form' of monistic idealism with the 'each-form' of pluralistic radical empiricism, defending the latter as more reasonable and intimate.
Critique of Absolutism
James critiques the absolute as a 'metaphysical monster' (Bradley) and argues that its logical proofs, like Lotze's, are merely verbal, failing to provide genuine understanding.
Temperament in Philosophy
James notes the aesthetic appeal of monistic systems ('clean and intellectual') versus the 'turbid, muddled, gothic' appearance of pluralism, highlighting temperamental preferences in philosophical choices.
Characters to notice
- John McTaggart
Quoted for his statement that reality is 'a stable and timeless state,' exemplifying the monistic idealist view.
- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Quoted on the illusion of the unaccomplished infinite aim and the true knowledge of God, representing the absolute idealist tradition.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quoted for his phrase 'I yielded myself to the perfect whole,' illustrating the emotional appeal of monism.
- F. H. Bradley
Referenced for his book 'Appearance and Reality' and his conception of the absolute as a 'metaphysical monster,' foreign to human categories.
- Baruch Spinoza
Cited as the first great absolutist, with his distinction between God quatenus infinitus and quatenus humanam mentem constituit, illustrating the foreignness of the absolute.
- Hermann Lotze
His proof of monism from the interaction of finite things is paraphrased and critiqued as a purely verbal argument.
Key passages
““Reality is not in its truest nature a process,” Mr. McTaggart tells us, “but a stable and timeless state.””
McTaggart asserts that reality is fundamentally unchanging and eternal, not a dynamic process.
James uses this to illustrate the monistic view that change is mere appearance.
““The true knowledge of God begins,” Hegel writes, “when we know that things as they immediately are have no truth.””
Hegel claims that genuine understanding of the divine starts with recognizing that immediate appearances are not ultimately real.
This exemplifies the idealist move from the each-form to the all-form.
“Lotze’s own solution runs as follows: The multiple independent things supposed cannot be real in that shape, but all of them, if reciprocal action is to be possible between them, must be regarded as parts of a single real being, M.”
Lotze argues that for separate things to interact, they cannot be truly independent but must be parts of a single underlying reality.
James critiques this as a verbal trick, changing the name from 'many' to 'one' without explaining the mechanism.
