Essay Sample on Exploring the Pursuit of Truth: Descartes & James

The world has been blessed to have the most resourceful philosophers and free thinkers. Indeed, Rene Descartes and William James were willing to expound on the truth and how many people come to believe that there is the truth and what is termed as false. The two philosophers came to a consensus from their articles that there are very different ideologies on fact but and thus they pursued different routes in pursuit of truth (Descartes, 109). Rene Descartes created a hypothesis that all honesty would be shallowed down to rationalization. Rationalization meaning that everyone can conclude that fact, but we all think differently and have different perspectives in analyzing situations (Descartes, 109). To understand the strategy, the life of the author comes into play. Rene Descartes was open to learning and with vigor and passion, he wanted to learn. Most of the time, he used to study in school to learn about the world. Unfortunately, he realized he was so far from the truth. William James, on the other hand, was open and believed there is the truth and thus through pragmatism, he was ready to dissect and establish the existence of the fact. William James is convinced that real ideas are the ones that we can genuinely confirm, confirm, substantiate and even prove (Descartes, 109). False beliefs are the reverse of the truth, and thus they cannot be accounted for in either of the above definitions. Rene Descartes is sure that there can never be the truth, but William James proves otherwise and says that truth can only be validated as a process

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Rene Descartes and William James take two contradicting sees trying to respond to the subject of what factual information is. Descartes takes the viewpoint of a foundationalist. James adopts a coherentist strategy when attempting to respond to this inquiry (James). A foundationalist is somebody who accepts that there is an undeniable suggestion wherein all other information gets defense from. This technique for thought has alluded to a Pyramid. The pyramid speaks to a conviction that an operator knows. With no plausibility of uncertainty, every single other belief grows from that obvious case like how a pyramid extends from the littlest point. Then again, a coherentist accepts that bits of information are advocated on such a premise, that they stick with a far-reaching arrangement of convictions that commonly bolster one another (Descartes, 109). Coherentism can be alluded to as The Raft since it speaks to our assemblage of information as a bundle that is coasting free from any deal. When displacing a bit of the float, you remain on one side and fix the other, comparably, when replacing a bit of information, you work from different cases you have to settle the case being questioned (James). Both Descartes and James utilize their separate methodologies to address the subject of what people can be said to know. In Descartes' journey to respond to the question of truth, he looks to sureness to reveal to him what convictions are reasonable.

Rene Descartes "Talk on the Method" is one of the most troublesome books for me to read because it partially moves me, and again baffling. It begins as a splendid questioning approach, wiping out whatever can be questioned until there is nothing left? Thus, by any guess or speculation be sensibly asked land at an essential, fundamental truth, giving a firm balanced establishment from different certainties can be inferred. Tragically, when Descartes finds this reality, he forsakes his questioning strategy for the most part, the rest of the book being given to religion, profound quality, the scholarly predominance of men, Aristo-lean idea, a protracted clarification of his comprehension of the human heart, lastly, a resistance of his perspectives and his purposes behind declaring them. The last areas, when accounted together with the general remorseful tone of this work, proposes that an all the more fitting title would have been "Talk on and Defense of the Method", with the last being the most frustrating part of his work.

William James talks, compositions and speculations were sorted out around the double standards of functionalism and practicality. Functionalism considers thought and conduct as far as how they help an individual adjust to their condition. At the end of the day, how they help an individual 'work' on the planet and be productive (James). The practical methodology was a reaction to winning structuralist approaches in brain science that separated conceptual mental occasions into their littlest components through trial systems and thoughtfulness. Structuralists accepted that the pieces of the mind acted the equivalent in any condition, while its useful versatility significantly more inspired James.

James was likewise dynamic in the realm of theory, and his thoughts of Pragmatism mirrored his principal point of view (James). The essential presumption of realism is that the unique 'truth' of an idea can never be wholly demonstrated thus theory ought to instead concentrate on the convenience of thought, or the distinction they can make in individuals' lives. James considered this the 'money estimation' of an idea. As James built up these perspectives, he moved away from logical, exploratory ways to deal with brain research, towards a progressively philosophical methodology. His composing is eminent for its connecting with, available, funny, artistic, and practically conversational tone. It was said of his book Principles of Psychology (1890), 'It is writing. It is delightful. However, it is not brain science.

Works Cited

Descartes, Rene. "DESCARTES'S DISCOURSE ON METHOD." Ratio et Fides: A Preliminary Intro-duction to Philosophy for Theology (2018): 109.

James, William. Pragmatism and the Conception of Thruth. BoD-Books on Demand, 2019.