Differences of temperament among philosophers greatly interested James and he viewed his pragmatism as a method for mediating between contradictory philosophical styles. The history of philosophy, he believes, can be seen as an interminable battle between the "tender-minded" and the "tough-minded" types of philosopher. Of the numerous Jamesian dichotomies this the most famous. it is best represented in tabular form.
The tender-minded individual seeks to live by principles; the tough- minded, by facts. "Clearness and simplicity thus set up rival claims," according to James, "and make a real dilemma for the thinker. A man's philosophic attitude is determined by the balance in him of these two cravings. No system of philosophy can hope to be universally accepted among men which grossly violates either need, or entirely subordinates the one to the other. The fate of Spinoza, with his barren union of all things in one substance, on the one hand; that of Hume, with his equally barren 'looseness and separateness' of everything, on the other --neither philosopher owning any strict and systematic disciples today, each being to posterity a warning as well as a stimulus--show us that the only possibly philosophy must be a compromise between an abstract monotony and concrete heterogenity." Philosophy as Antidote For James philosophical pursuits possessed great personal value as a means to overcome his own temperament. It is no anomaly that the author of rousing essays on free-will and the "will to believe" should have been a man afflicted at time with through-going skepticism and melancholia. The speculations of James in philosophy served as a tonic, an antidote for his pessimism and constitutional incredulity. Better living, rather than better thinking, was the primary objective of his philosophizing. That is, his basic concerns lay in the realm of ethics. Pragmatism often repels students on account of the apparent confusion between descriptive statements and statements of value. Although James occasionally deserves criticism for this kind of fault, the confusion usually lies in the mind of the be-holder. James did not haphazardly mingle statements of fact with statements of value but rather regarded truth systems and statements as means for realizing values. Some students of mathematics delight in ridiculing the Jamesian theory of truth on the grounds that the results of mathematical operations are either true or false, regardless of their capacity to give satisfaction. One plus one does not equal three, even if a mathematician could earn a fortune--or tenure--by showing it. James was well aware of this sort of example and dealt with it explicity: "In the realm of mental relations, truth again is an affair of leading. We relate one abstract idea with another, framing in the end great systems of logical and mathematical truth.... Our ready-made ideal framework for all sorts of possible objects follows from the very structure of out thinking. We can no more play fast and loose with these abstract relations than we can do so with our sense-experiences. They coerce us; we must treat them consistently, whether or not we like the results." Parietal Math It would be mistaken to view the remarks of James about mathematics as a renunciation of his pragmatic theory of truth. Consider the question, Why are parietal hours limited at Harvard? The answer, Because one and one make two, would be irrelevant. If, however, the response were Because one and one at times make one and then, nine months later, make three, the person who asked the question would recognize the reason for the University policy. Such a statement, the mathematician will say, involves a flagrant abuse of the concept of number. Yes--just as the moral and religious writings of Nietzsche involve the flagrant abuse of ethical and theological concepts. The ironical misuse of terms often draws attention to concealed weaknesses and camouflaged absurdities. In the above case, the misuse of numbers pinpoints the inadequacy of any model that describes the two elements of the initial set as rational and discreet. Clearly the elements of such sets are often irrational--and consequently indiscreet. Under certain conditions, then, it is more useful to state that one and one make three than that they add up to two. This curious state of affairs by no means looms as a grave threat to mathematics. It should serve as a warning, though, against the unsophisticated application of mathematical concepts and formulae to phenomena in the world of experience. James could assent to the rigors of logical and mathematical truth systems and still employ pragmatic criteria in utilizing such systems. Indeed, mathematicians can easily ignore two questions with which the Jamesian theory of truth is particularly well-suited for dealing: 1) Why learn mathematics? 2) What mathematical model is best for describing a given empirical situation? Errors in applying mathematical concepts to problems in the sciences are as common as parietal misadventures--and potentially no less dipterous. Only examing the practical consequences of various models can the scientist ultimately select the most satisfactory one. Similarly, in defending the pursuit of mathematics against the charge that it is a "frill," or pay-chosis-inducing, or, for some other reason, unsuitable for study, it champions must marshal evidence that conforms to pragmatic conceptions of proof. Inescapable Choice Illustrations from the field of mathematics usually cause pragmatists the most difficulty because they involve complex systems of value-free symbols. The necessity for moral choice, for deciding to hold on goal uppermost, and for acting in such a way that a goal be realized--these are teleological concerns too easily obscured by the intricacies of logical systems. Yet the importance even here of decision and commitment becomes obvious when the two previous questions are put into the following forms Ought I to study mathematics? Which mathematical model ought to apply to this problem? James viewed logic and mathematics from the perspective of the evolutionary biologist. What purpose do they have How are they used? Strangely, James thus made a valuable contribution to the very disciplined in which he felt least skillful. His pragmatic doctrine provides criteria for selecting among various axiom and, hence, for influencing the development of logical structures at their foundations. But, unlike Pierce, would not revel in the systems their such a program might generate. For James the sights, sounds, smells and tastes of immediate experience held too much allure. Systematically thinking he deemed valuable in as much as it facilitates effective action action bearing desirable consequence in the realm of pure, raw, personal experience. Although he blamed hear lecture commitments for his failure to write a "syllogistic" metaphysic his own temperament most probability was the real culprit. The beatific vision of William James is not one of regular polygons and concatenate syllogisms, but a paradise of pine woods aromas, Italian Renaissance art, and home-cooked food.