Wed, 25 Feb 2004
William James on differences that make a difference
While I'm on an
anti-definition kick, let me quote William James's
story of the squirrel:
SOME YEARS AGO, being with a camping party in the mountains, I
returned from a solitary ramble to find every one engaged in a
ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was
a squirrel - a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side
of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a
human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to
get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but
no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the
opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself
and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant
metaphysical problem now is this: Does the man go round the
squirrel or not? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and
the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel?
[Stop now and answer the question. When I did, I thought the
answer was bleeding obvious. Dawn thought so
too, but I was surprised that she thought it was the other
answer that was obvious. Since, I've asked others. It's not evenly
split, but neither Dawn nor I are alone.]
In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been
worn threadbare. Every one had taken sides, and was obstinate;
and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared
therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the
scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must
make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows:
"Which party is right," I said, "depends on what
you practically mean by 'going round' the squirrel. If you mean
passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south,
then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously
the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions.
But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then
on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally
in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go
round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes,
he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his
back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion
for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according
as you conceive the verb 'to go round' in one practical fashion
or the other."
That's from his
second
lecture on Pragmatism (and I'm so glad James died before Mickey
Mouse was born, so that I can
link to the whole thing).
When I get involved in definitional debates, I often think of James's
pragmatic method, which is to ask:
What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion
rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever
can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing,
and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be
able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side
or the other's being right.
Quite often, there is a practical difference. Then, if I'm lucky, I
can focus on which practical difference people want, thus sneaking
away from arguing about the definition.
## Posted at 20:07 in category /mangle
[permalink]
[top]
|
|