I decided to read on William James for two reasons: I had been briefly introduced through my times in Psychology last year and I needed a philosopher of the opposite camp of Descartes. I originally intended to discuss the differences between rationalism and empiricism, but have wandered, as per usual, into a different thought.
All humans perceive our shared reality distinctly. These distinctions arise out of differing experiences with the world, especially those from a young age. Our beginning years shape us the most—how our parents interact with us, the quality of our beginning conditions, if or if we do not meet and respond to other human and animal figures. These unique aspects of our upbringing create separate perceptions of reality. This is the focus of William James’s essay “On a Certain Blindness in Humans.”
All humans perceive our shared reality distinctly. These distinctions arise out of differing experiences with the world, especially those from a young age. Our beginning years shape us the most—how our parents interact with us, the quality of our beginning conditions, if or if we do not meet and respond to other human and animal figures. These unique aspects of our upbringing create separate perceptions of reality. This is the focus of William James’s essay “On a Certain Blindness in Humans.”
What effect does the difference of perception have on thought? Or, why does James bother to speak at all on the topic of distinct human experience? To me, it’s an attempt to understand and help others understand that humans are not all alike—a thing we like to roll our eyes at and say, “well, obviously!” From what I’ve seen, this is not quite as obvious as people suggest.
Like any good philosopher, one often reflects on arguments and asks Socrates’s favorite question: “Why?” A person will pose this question differently depending on his experiences. One may suggest something like, “Why was he so mean to me?” or “Why did she keep saying that when it’s obviously wrong?” Another individual may take another course: “Why was I wrong?” The questions reveal something particular about those that ask them and these unveilings act as answers for those questions. The big reveal? Everyone perceives and reacts to situations in differing ways and we can only see it our way.
This inability to understand each other’s situations in a complete way leads to some trouble amongst humans. Although people can accept others and understand their situations to a degree, they’ll never fully comprehend or feel about the subject in the same manner. This inevitable misunderstanding can lead one to not appreciate a lifestyle or glorify his own.
So, what’s the philosophy here? That we can’t reconcile our differences because we live so separately? No, certainly not. While these distinct lines can hinder our ability to empathize completely, they do not mean that we cannot attempt and succeed to a minimal degree. Without the separateness or uniqueness of each individual experience, there wouldn’t be much at all to experience. However, being cognizant of the fact that people come from backgrounds different than your own can save you a lot of trouble.
So, what’s the philosophy here? That we can’t reconcile our differences because we live so separately? No, certainly not. While these distinct lines can hinder our ability to empathize completely, they do not mean that we cannot attempt and succeed to a minimal degree. Without the separateness or uniqueness of each individual experience, there wouldn’t be much at all to experience. However, being cognizant of the fact that people come from backgrounds different than your own can save you a lot of trouble.
