Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2014, Vol. 9 Issue (1) : 130-148     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-003-014-0008-5
research-article |
Conjunctions and/or Disjunctions: Radical Empiricism in the History of Philosophy
Nicholas S. Brasovan()
Department of Philosophy and Religion, University of Central Arkansas, AR 72035, USA
Download: PDF(296 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

William James challenged the traditions of British Empiricism (Hume) on one hand and German Idealism (Kant and Hegel) on the other. James’ “Radical Empiricism” is a via media (“middle road”) between these divergent positions. His central points of contention are the ontological status of relationships and the correct analysis of experience. British Empiricism leaves us with a world of separate, particular facts, based on atomic sense impressions. Idealists, on the other hand, claim that all worldly phenomena are conjoined by one rational principle. According to James’ account, neither side recognizes that both conjunctive and disjunctive relations are integral to experience. Furthermore, James’ critique proved to influence A. N. Whitehead’s philosophy of experience and orientation toward Hume and Kant. This essay situates James’ philosophy in this polemical and historical context.

Keywords William James      Radical Empiricism      American philosophy      Kant      Whitehead      Hume      Hegel     
Issue Date: 16 May 2014
 Cite this article:   
Nicholas S. Brasovan. Conjunctions and/or Disjunctions: Radical Empiricism in the History of Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 130-148.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-003-014-0008-5
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2014/V9/I1/130
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Nicholas S. Brasovan
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Emilio Mazza. The Humean Way to China: Beyond the Stereotype[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 265-285.
[2] Jana S. Rošker. From Humanized Nature to Naturalized Humans―Li Zehou’s Transformation of the Classical Chinese “Tianren Heyi ” Paradigm Through the Lens of Kant and Early Marx[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 72-90.
[3] SUN Ning. Natural Realism or Transactionalism: On the Relationships between Putnam and Two Pragmatists, James and Dewey[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 295-305.
[4] Alan Fox. A Process Interpretation of Daoist Thought[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 26-37.
[5] Roger T. Ames. “Bodyheartminding” (Xin 心): Reconceiving the Inner Self and the Outer World in the Language of Holographic Focus and Field[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 167-180.
[6] James Swindal. Marx on Nature[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 358-369.
[7] Jung-Yeup Kim. Confucian Ethical Practice as a Method of Creating and Sustaining Whiteheadian Beauty[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 318-328.
[8] LIU Jing. Kant’s Virtue as Strength[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 451-470.
[9] XIE Wenyu. Kant’s Better Man and the Confucian Junzi[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(3): 481-497.
[10] CHEN Jiaming. On the Issues of Transcendental Argument[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(2): 255-269.
[11] YAN Mengwei. Tolerance or Hospitality?[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(1): 154-163.
[12] FANG Xudong. Confucian Ethics and Impartiality: On the Confucian View about Brotherhood[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(1): 1-19.
[13] GAO Guoxi, . Kant’s Virtue Theory[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2010, 5(2): 266-279.
[14] GUO Qiyong. Mou Zongsan’s view of interpreting Confucianism by “moral autonomy”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(3): 345-362.
[15] ZHANG Yunyi. Philosophy’s predicament and Hegel’s ghost: Refl ections on the view that there is “no philosophy in China”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(2): 230-246.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed