Synthesized answer
Slosson understood pragmatism as a way of thinking where actions and truths are valued based on their consequences and practicality, rather than their causes or precedent [1]. He believed that to determine if something is true, one must try it and observe how it works [2]. If it consistently works well for many people, it possesses some truth. Conversely, if it leads to wrong outcomes, it is false, at least in part [2]. If a concept cannot be tested, it has no meaning and makes no difference if believed or not [2].
His background in journalism and chemistry informed this view. In science, this "pragmatic mode of thinking is universal and unquestioned" [1]. This led him to naturally apply the same approach to other areas like politics and ethics, evaluating them by their results [1]. He saw thought as a tool, a means to an end, essential for action and for understanding the world's meaning to oneself [4]. The need for thought arises when asking "Why?" or "Which?" to achieve an objective [4].
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
journalist through the study of chemistry, and in science the pragmatic mode of thinking is universal and unquestioned. So when I went to writing about other things,—politics, law, ethics, history, religion, and the like,—I naturally used my brains in the same way as in science, that is, I persisted in the valuation of all acts by their consequences instead of their causes and in the validation of all truths by practicality instead of precedent. But when I found how this way of thinking shocked, annoyed, or amused people I began to fear that I should have to drop it as I had other evidences…
by a Chinaman. Even Herbert Spencer once condescended to translate his famous definition of evolution into Anglo-Saxon. Since I am obliged to use the word "pragmatism" more than once in this book I may forestall criticism by putting here my Monosyllabic Definition of Pragmatism The one way to find out if a thing is true is to try it and see how it works. If it works well for a long time and for all folks, it must have some truth in it. If it works wrong it is false, at least in part. If there is no way to test it, then it has no sense. It means naught to us when we cannot tell what odds it…
← Chapter 3 Six Major Prophets by Edwin Emery Slosson F. C. S. Schiller Chapter 5 → 284674 Six Major Prophets — F. C. S. Schiller Edwin Emery Slosson CHAPTER IV F. C. S. SCHILLER A British Pragmatist The world knows nothing of its greatest men, because by the time it knows something about them they have ceased to be the greatest. F. C. S. Schiller. A dozen years ago I happened upon the word "pragmatism", as it was printed, rather inappropriately, upon the slip cover of Santayana 's " Life of Reason ." Being a queer looking word and unknown to me, I started to find out what it meant and that…
n a way that we make truth for our own use. What we think must be of use to us in some way, else why should we think it? The truth is what is good for us, what helps us, what gives us joy and strength, what shows us how to act, what ties up fact to fact, so the chain will hold, what makes us see all things clear and straight, and what keeps us from stray paths that turn out wrong in the end. Thought is a tool, a means to an end. Man has to act, and so he must think. In this way he asks the world what it means to him. The need for thought first comes when man asks "Why?" or "Which?" so that he…
ir names and started to find them wherever they might be. I ran down Dewey in the Adirondacks and Bergson in the Alps. Poincaré I unearthed in a Paris flat, James I heard in a Columbia lecture room; Ostwald I found in a Saxon village; Schiller I caught in an Oxford quad. I was thinking of going to China to see Wang Yang-ming , but fortunately before I had bought my steamer ticket or learned Chinese I discovered that he had been dead for three centuries. Some who have read or tried to read what I said about Bergson and Poincaré have complained that I used too many big words, and one man…
More questions about this book
- The text opens with a Mohammedan proverb emphasizing the recognition of contemporary "prophets," yet later presents F. C. S. Schiller's view that the world knows its greatest men only after they have ceased to be greatest. How might Slosson reconcile these two seemingly contradictory ideas when selecting and portraying his "Six Major Prophets," and what implicit criteria might he be using?
- G. B. Shaw's quote critiques the "impertinence" of writing about individuals who have already written about themselves. Given Slosson's dedication acknowledging his son's incorporated thoughts and his own role as a literary editor, how might this critique challenge or inform Slosson's own approach to biographical writing in "Six Major Prophets"?
- Slosson asserts that the "pragmatic mode of thinking is universal and unquestioned" in science and implies its applicability to "politics, law, ethics, history." If you were to explain how pragmatic thinking would manifest in one of these non-scientific fields, drawing on Slosson's implied understanding, what would be its key characteristics, and what unique challenges or benefits might it present in that domain?
- Consider the collective impact of the dedication to Slosson's son, the Mohammedan proverb, and the G. B. Shaw quote as the opening elements of the book. What overarching tone or intellectual challenge do these elements establish for the reader, and how might they influence how one approaches the "prophets" Slosson introduces?