Philosophy Now Forum

"There can be no doubt that as a matter of fact a religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the person exceptional and eccentric. I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. These experiences we can only find in individuals for whom religion exists not as a dull habit, but as an acute fever rather. But such individuals are 'geniuses' in the religious line; and like many other geniuses who have brought forth fruits effective enough for commemoration in the pages of biography, such religious geniuses have often shown symptoms of nervous instability. Even more perhaps than other kinds of genius, religious leaders have been subject to abnormal psychical visitations. Invariably they have been creatures of exalted emotional sensibility. Often they have led a discordant inner life, and had melancholy during a part of their career. They have known no measure, been liable to obsessions and fixed ideas; and frequently they have fallen into trances, heard voices, seen visions, and presented all sorts of peculiarities which are ordinarily classed as pathological. Often, moreover, these pathological features in their career have helped to give them their religious authority and influence." --from The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James (1842-1910), American philosopher and psychologist

By posting this type of thing you appear to enjoy the ridicule it attracts.

Ginkgo wrote:By posting this type of thing you appear to enjoy the ridicule it attracts.

Is that a slam against the late and great William James???

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:By posting this type of thing you appear to enjoy the ridicule it attracts.

Is that a slam against the late and great William James???

If you are asking if I have a criticism of the book, then the answer would be in the affirmative. I won't outline my criticisms because I don't think you would be interested. However, I would point out that the quote you provided shows James is definitely not endorsing the the religious 'genius'. In empirical terms it is the exact opposite. If you don't believe me then read the latter paragraphs after the quote you posted.

Anyway, if I were you I would forget about the James quote. It isn't a good look when applied to any individual.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:By posting this type of thing you appear to enjoy the ridicule it attracts.

Is that a slam against the late and great William James???

If you are asking if I have a criticism of the book, then the answer would be in the affirmative. I won't outline my criticisms because I don't think you would be interested. However, I would point out that the quote you provided shows James is definitely not endorsing the the religious 'genius'. In empirical terms it is the exact opposite. If you don't believe me then read the latter paragraphs after the quote you posted.

Anyway, if I were you I would forget about the James quote. It isn't a good look when applied to any individual.

The paragraph following the one stated earlier should dispel your egregious response and enable you to judge Bob the Baptist and the Church of Ouzo in a new light:

"If you ask for a concrete example, there can be no better one than is furnished by the person of George Fox. The Quaker religion which he founded is something which it is impossible to overpraise. In a day of shams, it was a religion of veracity rooted in spiritual inwardness, and a return to something more like the original gospel truth than men had ever known in England. So far as our Christian sects to-day are evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Every one who confronted him personally, from Oliver Cromwell down to county magistrates and jailers, seems to have acknowledged his superior power."

bobevenson wrote:
The paragraph following the one stated earlier should dispel your egregious response and enable you to judge Bob the Baptist and the Church of Ouzo in a new light:

"If you ask for a concrete example, there can be no better one than is furnished by the person of George Fox. The Quaker religion which he founded is something which it is impossible to overpraise. In a day of shams, it was a religion of veracity rooted in spiritual inwardness, and a return to something more like the original gospel truth than men had ever known in England. So far as our Christian sects to-day are evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Every one who confronted him personally, from Oliver Cromwell down to county magistrates and jailers, seems to have acknowledged his superior power."

I am not questioning your spirituality and I am sure James wouldn't as well if he were alive today. What is not a good look is James' claim that Fox had pathological problems. In other words,James is saying that Foxes mind was unstable.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:
The paragraph following the one stated earlier should dispel your egregious response and enable you to judge Bob the Baptist and the Church of Ouzo in a new light:

"If you ask for a concrete example, there can be no better one than is furnished by the person of George Fox. The Quaker religion which he founded is something which it is impossible to overpraise. In a day of shams, it was a religion of veracity rooted in spiritual inwardness, and a return to something more like the original gospel truth than men had ever known in England. So far as our Christian sects to-day are evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Every one who confronted him personally, from Oliver Cromwell down to county magistrates and jailers, seems to have acknowledged his superior power."

I am not questioning your spirituality and I am sure James wouldn't as well if he were alive today. What is not a good look is James' claim that Fox had pathological problems. In other words,James is saying that Foxes mind was unstable.

What part of "No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound" don't you understand?
____________________________________________________________________

P.S. Also, please take note of the following: this post was number 6 with 66 views (666, my friend)
William James' uncanny description of Bob the Baptist
6
66
Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:33 am
bobevenson

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:
The paragraph following the one stated earlier should dispel your egregious response and enable you to judge Bob the Baptist and the Church of Ouzo in a new light:

"If you ask for a concrete example, there can be no better one than is furnished by the person of George Fox. The Quaker religion which he founded is something which it is impossible to overpraise. In a day of shams, it was a religion of veracity rooted in spiritual inwardness, and a return to something more like the original gospel truth than men had ever known in England. So far as our Christian sects to-day are evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Every one who confronted him personally, from Oliver Cromwell down to county magistrates and jailers, seems to have acknowledged his superior power."

I am not questioning your spirituality and I am sure James wouldn't as well if he were alive today. What is not a good look is James' claim that Fox had pathological problems. In other words,James is saying that Foxes mind was unstable.

What part of "No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound" don't you understand?

James is a hard empiricist who applied that method to psychology. James sees no contradiction in claiming that a person can be demonstrably mentally unsound and genuinely spiritual at the same time. James sees no conflict between the two and I would agree with this as well. One doesn't necessary exclude the other. This is aspect is important in empirical terms for the main thesis of his book.

I guess you would agree with James that in terms of spiritual sagacity and capacity, my mind is quite sound.

bobevenson wrote:I guess you would agree with James that in terms of spiritual sagacity and capacity, my mind is quite sound.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I guess you would agree with James that in terms of spiritual sagacity and capacity, my mind is quite sound.

A laughing emoticon portrays a fool, and the mystical perfection of 7 portrays a perfect fool.