Essay --

James and Descartes William James and Rene Descartes are both philosophers who created methods on how to find the truth in life. James created the pragmatic method and Descartes used reason. I think that these two methods are somewhat dissimilar for several reasons. The first reason, is because Descartes used his method to find proof in himself and urged others to use it to find truth in themselves as well whereas William James used the pragmatic method to help find the truth in two sides of an argument. In James’ first essay, he tries to explain what pragmatism is with a story about a camping trip he took with a few of his friends. The friends began to argue about whether a man and a squirrel pass each other while going around a tree but do not see one another. Pragmatism seems to be a little confusing at first. I had to reread the argument about the squirrel and the human a couple of times to understand what the argument was about. I personally agreed with the group who said the man did not go around the squirrel simply because physically, he did not pass the animal while going around the tree. When James explained what the pragmatic method was, I interpreted it as basically trying to find correctness in both arguments depending on how you’re looking at it. Descartes’ method is ultimately about finding the truth within yourself. He says that there are two types of people that would not benefit from his method: those who think they know more than they do and who lack the patience for such careful work, and those who are modest enough to think that they are more capable of finding out the truth if they follow a teacher. Descartes also creates a three to four maxim moral code to guide his behavior while he experiences his period... ...uire that â€Å"vital good†, if religion is true. I think that this is why I can’t fully agree with Descartes philosophy because I’m not a religious person. The majority of the time, I need physical evidence to believe in something. I don’t really feed into the â€Å"I think, therefore I am† philosophy because I wouldn’t want my religion/ my beliefs to be everything that I am. I do consider that humans have free will and are more than able to find the truth in something, but only if they are looking for it and doing anything whatsoever that is required to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used. It does not matter whether these methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil; we see this on an everyday basis in people’s actions which coincides with James’ statement â€Å"the end justifies the means†.