The Final Days of Charles Sanders Peirce

One morning in late December 1906, Henry Alsburg was called by his landlady in Prescott Hall at 471 Broadway in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She wanted Alsburg "to come into one of the rooms to see an old gentleman, who had been ill and was very likely dying."

Entering the room, Alsburg found a sick man, suffering from malnutrition, his body worn out. Asked his name, the man answered "Charles Peirce."

Without enough money to buy food, Peirce was the same man of whom Bertrand Russell later said, "Beyond doubt . . . he was one of the most original minds of the later nineteenth century, and certainly the greatest American thinker ever."

Today there are university research centers devoted to Peirce studies and pragmatism in Brazil, Finland, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. His writings have been translated into several languages, including German, French, Finnish, Spanish, and Swedish.

Peirce was a brilliant man, acknowledged as the brightest of the bright even in his day. A logician, he pioneered the modern study, Semiotics--the study of sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols.

Henry Alsburg--who found Peirce ill and dying--studied under William James, the first of the modern psychologists. Alsburg quickly told James about Peirce, whom James had held as a friend. Hearing about the man, James said, "Why, I owe him everything!" He and Alsburg left the Harvard campus, climbing into a cab to take Peirce home to James' house.*

Peirce spent much of his last two decades unable to afford heat in winter, and living on stale bread given him by the neighborhood baker. Unable to afford new stationery, he wrote on the blank side of his old manuscripts. An outstanding warrant for assault and unpaid debts led to his being a fugitive in New York City for a while. His debts were settled and his property taxes as well as mortgage were paid by his brother James Mills Peirce and his neighbors, relatives of Gifford Pinchot (chief of the US Forest Service under Theodore Roosevelt).

As an example of Peirce's mind, there is this: In his "F.R.L." [First Rule of Logic] (1899), Peirce states that the first, and "in one sense, this sole" rule of reason is that, in order to learn, one needs to desire to learn and desire it without resting satisfied with that which one is inclined to think.

So the first rule is to wonder.

Without steady income, he wrote for money in Popular Science Monthly Number 12 (November 1877), an essay titled "The Fixation of Belief." It can be read here.

*(William James In The Maelstrom of American Modernism, Richard Robertson, Houghton Mifflin 2007, p. 137)

William James & Religious Belief

William James & Religious Belief

As has been often said, William James was ahead of his time. He has an answer to the problem of maintaining religious belief in the modern age and, according to the Wilson Quarterly, "remains perhaps America’s most significant contribution to philosophy and a source of inspiration for contemporary thinkers." More

A Physicist's Proof of God's Existence: Point and Counterpoint

Point. Physicist Amit Goswami "is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it. Without an observer, he claims, it only exists as a possibility. And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls 'monistic idealism,' the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is."A professor of physics at the University of Oregon and a member of its Institute of Theoretical Science, Dr. Goswami is part of a growing body of renegade scientists who in recent years have ventured into the domain of the spiritual in an attempt both to interpret the seemingly inexplicable findings of their experiments and to validate their intuitions about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life. The culmination of Goswami's own work is his book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. Rooted in an interpretation of the experimental data of quantum physics (the physics of elementary particles), the book weaves together a myriad of findings and theories in fields from artificial intelligence to astronomy to Hindu mysticism in an attempt to show that the discoveries of modern science are in perfect accord with the deepest mystical truths. (Link gone. Formerly at homepages.ihug.co.nz) Another link can be found here.

Counterpoint. "My main objection to Goswami's philosophy is that he has defined consciousness in such a way that it no longer has its normal meaning of mental consciousness, but instead is supposed to refer to something non-mental. We might call this 'Goswamian consciousness' or 'quantum consciousness', as opposed to 'mental consciousness'. He says, for instance:

...consciousness transcends both matter and mind ... [Hard Questions, Sect. II]

Conventionally, Western philosophers attribute properties of consciousness - experience and choice - to the mind. This has been corrected in quantum functionalism in which consciousness is defined to transcend both matter and mind. [Hard Questions, Sect. VI]

In so far as Goswami's philosophy is a monism at all, it is therefore a neutral monism, not a mental monism (or 'monistic idealism' as he calls it). As I have argued elsewhere, any neutral monism is actually identical to a version of physical monism, just because the physical world is already as neutral as a world can be. . . . You will not, for instance, spot any electrons by looking out of the window of the Clapham omnibus*: we are acquainted with the basic constituents of the physical world only through the propositions and formulae of physics. So, those extrinsic properties are the only properties possessed by those entities. Hence, physicalism itself is 'neutral' in the relevant sense. Therefore, to say that a metaphysical theory such as Goswami's is a 'neutral' monism is just to say that it is a 'physical' monism." (Link gone. Formerly at easyweb.easynet.co.uk) 

*(The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would – for example, in a civil action for negligence. He is a reasonably educated, intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.)

My comments. In the counterpoint, an experiential approach is used. (Looking out the window of the Clapham omnibus.) For whatever it is worth, a different kind of experience consistently supports monistic idealism. All the accounts of mystics, be they Christian, Hindu, Buddhists, Sufi, share a pattern of description in terms of monistic idealism. People who report their experiences under hallucinogens also reveal a pattern of monistic idealism.

For a different perspective, I offer William James' classic, The Varieties of Religious Experience:

"Medical materialism finishes up Saint Paul by calling his vision on the road to Damascus a discharging lesion of the occipital cortex, he being an epileptic. It snuffs out Saint Teresa as an hysteric, Saint Francis of Assisi as an hereditary degenerate. . . . And medical materialism then thinks that the spiritual authority of all such personages is successfully undermined. . . . "

"According to the general postulate of psychology just referred to . . . scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only knew the facts intimately enough, we should doubtless see "the liver" determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. . . ."

"To plead the organic causation of a religious state of mind, then, in refutation of its claim to possess superior spiritual value, is quite illogical and arbitrary, unless one has already worked out in advance some psycho-physical theory connecting spiritual values in general with determinate sorts of physiological change. Otherwise none of our thoughts and feelings, not even our scientific doctrines, not even our DIS-beliefs, could retain any value as revelations of the truth, for every one of them without exception flows from the state of its possessor's body at the time."

Happiness and Public Policy

Happiness and Public Policy

Not all people would say that happiness is the highest good, Some would instead assert that a meaningful life is more important. Still others would posit different values. A thoughtful consideration of the matter does reveal that happiness, broadly construed, best serves the public weal. To benefit a nation, policies must define the public good and provide instruments for implementing it. This is not easy in part because people are widely adaptive to bad situations. They can ignore smog, accept TV schlock, endure traffic jams, shrug off global warming because that’s the way things are. This acceptance is rather akin to a frog in a pan. Dump it into boiling water, goes the story, and it will immediately jump out. Place it in luke warm water, then
slowly turn up the fire, and it will cook to death. We are cooking as I write.

John Stuart Mill

Happiness has recent history as public policy. In antiquity Aristotle wrote of happiness for the individual amidst an elite. In the Nineteenth Century Jeremy Bentham argued for it as a policy of the greatest good for the greatest number. His view of human behavior came down to this: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think." As a result of his pleasure/pain calculus he famously said push pin is as good as John Stuart Mill espoused a system to promote it.
poetry. He spoke of a game with needles for gambling. From Bentham,

As a classical empiricist in a society with slaves to do the work, Aristotle maintained that happiness was inseparable from leisure and that labor was a vice. On the cusp of the British Industrial Revolution, Mill proposed Utilitarianism--the greatest good for the greatest number--as public policy.

William James

World-wide surveys repeatedly reveal that people regard happiness as indisputably desirable. It consistently ranks at the top in surveys all over the globe. Whatever the values of various societies and cultures, humans almost universally grade happiness as an extremely important value.

In the United States, William James and others developed the philosophy of Pragmatism, which evolved out of the ideas of Mill. Both Utilitarianism and Pragmatism did not aim at happiness for the individual in particular but for society in general--happiness as part of public policy. Broadly speaking, in the United States such policy is a feature of liberal agendas, which conservatives roundly curse while favoring dollar democracy. In Europe, the notion of public weal has remained as a larger feature of public policy, although economics and government belt-tightening challenge the policy.

If surveyed, most people would endorse public policies that promote happiness for the greater number of people. Implementing such policies would not be easy. Planners must agree upon sources and causes of happiness. Having done that, the devil follows in the details. How to implement a public policy for happiness? In the United States, liberal policies have been increasingly deconstructed by conservatives who have called them failures, although a scholarly study of the matter reveals an equal share of intellectual muddle on both sides, liberal and conservative.

Despite this wrangling, a major question is ignored in public policy. Do degrees of happiness consistently correlate to income or do they depend on societal, cultural, and individual situations?

This wrangling partly occurs because in America money is confused with happiness. The conditions for individual happiness are identified by that which is believed to support it, which in the United States is almost exclusively the dollar. American studies of happiness reveal high incomes as correlated with happiness. People associate more money with a better life. Elsewhere on the globe, this association does not occur as noticeably. To be sure, people everywhere agree that happiness is difficult in extreme poverty, but definitions of poverty vary, and high income is not universally ranked as important. Indeed, in Western, materialistic, societies, happiness is associated with greater "stuff." Those who have things are presumed to be happier. And there is some truth to this. Some, but not all.

Global surveys continue to reveal that although the rich are significantly happier than the poor, average happiness levels change very little in index to people’s incomes.

War-ravaged Japan was still reconstructing in 1960 when surveys were taken to determine the average level of happiness. By 1988 Japanese per capita income increased four times above its 1960 level. People had more cars, shoes, clothes, cameras, stereos, washing machines, and yet the average happiness remained constant with 1960. This pattern was not unique to Japan. It repeats itself in other countries.

Other elements of happiness polls suggest something about human nature--that people don't really know what is good for them. Put differently, they may say one thing and do another. * Higher incomes do not necessarily promote greater happiness, why, then, do people want more money?

* ( In some circumstances, this is labeled as blatant hypocrisy, but often it reveals that people don't understand the workings of their own minds, or have not sorted through their conflicting beliefs.)

A related question--in order to buy more stuff and reduce tax burden, is steady, persistent per capita income growth desirable in terms of happiness?

In Daedalus, (Vol. 133, Issue 2, spring 2004) Robert H. Frank (author of Luxury Fever) casts an 4000 square foot homes, totally isolated from another people living in 3000 square foot homes. He calls each Society A and Society B. Because separated from one another, each people is equally satisfied and do not question the square-footage norm. Further, the larger houses do not provide advantage in terms of longevity or health.
interesting light on the subject. He offers two scenarios, one with a people living in

He observes that "it takes real resources to build larger houses." The difference between 3000 and 4000 square feet implies a difference in resources. His question: "Are there alternative ways of spending these resources that could have produced lasting gains in human welfare?"

Society B (smaller home) residents use saved resources for the commonweal. They spend the money and material to promote specific changes in their living conditions. ". . . cost savings from building smaller houses are sufficient to fund not only the construction of high-speed public transit, but also to make the added flexibility of the automobile available on an as-needed basis." (Frank) In short, they don't need a car but can drive it if they want to. They simply don't have one thousand additional feet of floor space.

Because all income goes toward stuff, Society A residents have no excess resources for improvement of their situation. They cannot fund pubic transit and must depend on the automobile. Their cars continue to cause traffic gridlock and high stress levels. Although nicer to live in, is the larger home more valuable in the context of longer commute times, traffic jams, and traffic noise?

These are factors demonstrably correlated to reduction in happiness. When a new, noisy highway was opened, people living next it were studied. Shortly after its opening, 21 percent said the noise did not bother them; a year later, the figure dropped to 16 percent. Prolonged exposure to noise elevates blood pressure lastingly. Auto commuters are subject to various noises. Things are out of their control. They cannot predict bottlenecks or accidents. They get cut off by drivers even more tense. "A large scientific study documents a multitude of stress symptoms" from daily commuting. The stress is known "to suppress immune function and shorten longevity." (Frank) This is aside from the risk of accidents or the inhalation of carcinogenic exhaust fumes.

Frank points out that a rational person would choose Society B in order to promote his own happiness. Americans, in pursuit of happiness, still do not turn from the norms of Society A. In the meantime, we frogs are in the pan and the water is becomingly increasingly uncomfortable . . . .
---------

Bentham skeleton and head, the "Auto-Icon,"
 the skeleton padded with hay,
dressed in Bentham's clothes.
  University College, London

As for Bentham, as requested in his will, his body was preserved and stored in a wooden cabinet.

A smorgasbord of other Mind Shadow links on happiness are here:
😊Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner: Happiness Can Be Had With $60,000 Yearly Income, 17 February 2011
😊We Think We Know What Will Make Us Happy, But Are Bad Predictors of What Actually Will, 19 January 2009
😊Misconceptions About Happiness (Maybe You'd Really Rather Have A Candy Bar)Hire An Expert: People Aren't Too Good At Estimating Their Own Feelings, 11 October 2007
😊Happiness and Public Policy, 20 July 2005
😊Robert H. Frank, Big Houses, and Happiness, 6 February 2009
😊Martin Seligman and Authentic Happiness Against Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Rind, 17 October 2007
😊Happiness Isn't What It Used To Be, 29 March 2011
😊Shift Demographics, Inc. Send Right Away For Your Personal Happiness Kit, 16 February 2008
😊Matthieu Ricard, Happiness, and Buddhist Meditation, 7 February 2013
😊On Happiness: Jean François Revel, His Son Matthieu Ricard, and Their Exchange About Buddhism: 10 days in an Inn above Kathmandu, 8 May 2006
😊Happiness: Positive Emotions Versus Life Meaning, 6 January 2009
😊Happiness Anyone? Is It Good For Society, or Does Its Pursuit Harm Society? These and Other Views, Including Martin Seligman and a Psychological Science Article, 1 July 2005
😊You Can Improve Your Life (And That's Not A Platitude), 11 March 2009
😊Does Spontaneity Promote Happiness?, 22 October 2009
😊Happiness is Over-Rated: I, 6 April 2008
😊Happiness Is Over-Rated: II, 29 May 2008
😊From DNA and Consciousness to Snorts, Sighs, and Happiness, 14 January 2010