AlexRS Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Here is a pretty good way of looking at it by William James. I would even argue that anybody exhibiting qualities highlighted in bold are victims of this. Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries, when philosophizing, to sink the fact of his temperament. Temperament is no conventionally recognized reason, so he urges impersonal reasons only for his conclusions. Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more stricktly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or the other, making for a more sentimantal or a more hard-hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trustshis temperament. Wanting a universe that suits it, he believes in any representation of the universe that does not suite it. He feels men of opposite temper to be out of key with the world's character, and in his heart considers them incompetent and "not in it," in the philosophic business, even though they may far excel him in dialectical ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.