Abstract
Abstract Scholars have debated the nature and merit of William James’s “Individualism.” Influential readings maintain that James errantly privileges categories like “interiority” and personal “experience.” Rather than downplaying James’s preferred categories—categories like experience, interiority, and the individual—simply because such categories are shibboleths of the contemporary academy, this article takes up two of James’s most “private” categories (“self,” “despair”) in order to better understand the complexity of Jamesian individualism. Acknowledging James’s unflagging individualism and individualism’s place in his philosophical and ethical system, this article maintains that James’s personal and private concepts not only promote—but are prerequisite to—public-facing ethics and socially-contingent philosophical inquiry.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.