.jpg)
The legitimate conclusion from [William James's] argument [that if we don't have the necessary information for deciding between, for example, "God exists" and "God doesn't exist," we ought to choose one anyway in order to have a 50% chance of being right] would be that, in such cases as William James has in mind, we ought to believe both alternatives; for in that case we are sure [emphasis mine] of "knowing" the truth in the matter. If it were said that to believe both is a psychological impossibility, we would rejoin that, on the contrary, it is often done, and that those who cannot yet do it need only to practice the "will to believe" until they have learnt to believe that the law of contradiction is false—a feat which is by no means as difficult as it is often supposed to be.Who said philosophy couldn't be a barrel of laughs?
_______________
Another passage a page further down:
To go about the world believing everything in the hope that thereby we shall believe as much truth as possible is like practicing polygamy in the hope that among so many we shall find someone who will make us happy.Bertrand Russell was a great writer. Did you know that he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950? Well, he was. "..."in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
I thought the passage was mildly funny but very insightful. Our behavior is very seldom guided by binary thinking.
ReplyDeleteThe Nobel Prize isn't the mark of excellence I once thought it was. Its luster endures only when awarded for the sciences.
Ken, I know what you mean about the Nobel Prize in Literature, but I feel certain that Russell's award was richly deserved.
ReplyDeleteI've laughed more lately than ever in my life, which, while I regard it as a very good and healthy thing, probably means that I laugh at a lot of things that are really only mildly funny!