Philosophical and Educational ideas of William James

Submitted to: Dr. Ghazanfar Ali

Submitted by: Naila Mushtaq
Ph.D 1st semester

Institute of Education
University Of Sargodha
Year 2023-2026
 William James

William James, (born January 11, 1842, New York, New York, U.S.—died August 26, 1910,
Chocorua, New Hampshire), American philosopher and psychologist, a leader of the
philosophical movement of pragmatism and a founder of the psychological movement
of functionalism.
William James (1842-1910) is considered by many to be the most insightful and stimulating of
American philosophers, as well as the second of the three great pragmatists (the middle link
between Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey). As a professor of psychology and of philosophy
at Harvard University, he became the most famous living American psychologist and later the most
famous living American philosopher of his time. Avoiding the logically tight systems typical of
European rationalists, such as the German idealists, he cobbled together a psychology rich in
philosophical implications and a philosophy enriched by his psychological expertise. More
specifically, his theory of the self and his view of human belief as oriented towards conscious
action raised issues that required him to turn to philosophy. There he developed his pragmatic
epistemology, which considers the meaning of ideas and the truth of beliefs not abstractly, but in
terms of the practical difference they can make in people’s lives. He explored the implications of
this theory in areas of religious belief, metaphysics, human freedom and moral values, and social
philosophy (James et al, 2003). His contributions in these areas included critiques of long-standing
philosophical positions on such issues as freedom vs. determinism, correspondence vs. coherence,
and dualism vs. materialism, as well as a thorough analysis of a phenomenological understanding
of the self and consciousness, a “forward-looking” conception of truth (based on validation and
revisable experience), a thorough-going metaphysical pluralism, and a commitment to a full view
of agency in connection with communal and social concerns (Caruso, 2012). Thus, he created one
of the last great philosophical systems in Western thought, even if he did not live quite long enough
to complete every aspect of it. The combination of his provocative ideas and his engaging writing
style has contributed to the enduring impact of his work.
Stages of His Life:
11.01.1842 - Born in New York City (Astor House), the first child of a wealthy, educated family,
grows up together with three brothers and a sister who are very loved and encouraged from an
early age on, his young brother Henry is a well-known writer, his sister Alice writes literary diaries
1847-1860 - Visiting a number of public and private schools in New York, London, Paris (1856),
Newport (1858), Geneva (1859) and Bonn (1860), he does not graduate
1860 - Family returns after abroad to Newport, William begins at first to study painting
1861 - Change at the Lawrence Scientific School at Harvard to study the chemistry and anatomy
1864 - Change to the Department of Medicine
1865-1866 - Expedition to the Amazon (Brazil), which is headed by the geologist Louis Agassiz;
disease
1867-1868 - Stays in various German spas, lifelong health problems (chronic back and eye
problems, insomnia and depression)
Attending lectures on the physiology and psychology in Berlin and reading the philosophical,
psychological and physiological publications of Wundt, Kant, Lessing, Goethe, Schiller, Renan,
Renouvier
1869 - finishing the study of medicine with the Doctor of Medicine (MD), without ever practicing
medicine
1870-1871 - Depression and poor health
1870 - Member of the "Metaphysical Club" at Cambridge, lead by Charles Sanders Peirce
1872 - Offer of the President of the Harvard University to teach a basic course in comparative
physiology
1873-1907 - Lecturer at Harvard University
1873-1876 - Courses in anatomy and physiology; stay in Europe
1875 - Courses in experimental psychology (for the first time in the U.S.), his students treated
collegially, asks them to evaluate his teaching, founded first American psychology laboratory
1876 - Appointment as Assistant Professor of Physiology
1878 - Marriage with Alice Howe Gibbens
1880 - Appointment as Assistant Professor of Philosophy
1882 - Stay in Europe
1885 - Complete change towards philosophy, was appointed full professor of philosophy
1894-1895 - President of the "Society for Psychical Research"
1901 and 1902 - Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh
1903 - Participation on the 5th International Congress of Psychology in Rome; Honorary doctorate
from Harvard University
1906 - Visiting Professor at Stanford University
1907 - Lectures in Boston; Retirement, continued his publishing activities
1908 - Hibbert Lectures at Oxford
26. August 1910- Death at his country home in Chocorua, New Hampshire
Philosophical Bases of William James.
Epistemology
Even if philosophically interesting matters such as freedom vs. determinism cannot be
scientifically resolved, some sort of epistemological methodology is needed if we are to avoid
arbitrary conclusions. Whatever approach is chosen, it is clear that James repudiates rationalism,
with its notions of a priori existential truths. He is particularly hostile to German idealism, which
he identifies especially with Hegel and which he attacks in many of his essays (this identification
leads him to be remarkably unfair to Kant, an earlier German idealist). As he makes clear in “The
Sentiment of Rationality,” the personality of the would-be knower and various practical concerns
are far too relevant to allow for such abstract intellectualism (Rooney, 1993). The tradition of
modern empiricism is more promising, yet too atomistic to allow us to move much beyond the
knowledge of acquaintance to genuine comprehension. Fortunately, James had already learned
about the pragmatic approach from Peirce.
a. The Pragmatic Method
James’s book of lectures on Pragmatism is arguably the most influential book of American
philosophy. The first of its eight lectures presents pragmatism as a more attractive middle ground
between the two mainstream approaches of European philosophy. The “tender-minded” approach
tends to be rationalistic, intellectualistic, idealistic, optimistic, religious, committed to freedom,
monistic, and dogmatic; by contrast, the “tough-minded” approach tends to be empirical, grounded
in sensations, materialistic, pessimistic, irreligious, fatalistic, pluralistic, and skeptical. It is
difficult to identify many pure types of either of these in the history of philosophy, and some
thinkers (such as Kant) are deliberately mixed, as is James himself. He thinks that most of us want
a philosophical method that is firmly anchored in empirical facts, while being open to, rather than
dismissive of, moral and religious values. He offers pragmatism as a philosophy that coherently
meets both demands. James’s second lecture is committed to showing how the pragmatic method
helps us establish meaning by making it a function of practical consequences (Kloppenberg, 1996).
Before we invest much time or effort in seeking the meaning of anything, we should
consider what practical difference it would make if we could find out. Providing an example to
illustrate his point, James refers to the Hegelian notion of God as the all-encompassing Absolute
Spirit. How should we decide whether this is what we should mean by God? Consider the practical
consequences for a believer: on the one hand, it would provide us with the optimistic, comforting
assurance that everything will work out for the best; but, on the other, it also undermines the values
of human individuality, freedom, and responsibility. From that pragmatic perspective, James
rejects the Hegelian notion. Undoubtedly, philosophy provides us with only one legitimate
approach to belief, as he observes in his fifth lecture, others being common sense (with its basic
concepts derived from experience) and science. However, these others are impotent in dealing
with questions of freedom and value.
b. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
It seems that anything knowable must be true. But what does it mean to call a proposition
or belief “true” from the perspective of pragmatism? This is the subject of James’s famous sixth
lecture. He begins with a standard dictionary analysis of truth as agreement with reality. Accepting
this, he warns that pragmatists and intellectualists will disagree over how to interpret the concepts
of “agreement” and “reality,” the latter thinking that ideas copy what is fixed and independent of
us. By contrast, he advocates a more dynamic and practical interpretation, a true idea or belief
being one we can incorporate into our ways of thinking in such a way that it can be experientially
validated.
For James, the “reality” with which truths must agree has three dimensions: (1) matters of
fact, (2) relations of ideas (such as the eternal truths of mathematics), and (3) the entire set of other
truths to which we are committed. To say that our truths must “agree” with such realities
pragmatically means that they must lead us to useful consequences. He is a fallibilist, seeing all
existential truths as, in theory, revisable given new experience. They involve a relationship
between facts and our ideas or beliefs. Because the facts, and our experience of them, change we
must beware of regarding such truths as absolute, as rationalists tend to do. This relativistic theory
generated a firestorm of criticism among mainstream philosophers to which he responded in The
Meaning of Truth.
c. The Pragmatic Approach to Belief
Western philosophers have traditionally viewed knowledge as justified, true belief. So long
as the idea of truth is pragmatically analyzed and given a pragmatic interpretation of justification,
James seems to accept that view. His entire philosophy can be seen as fundamentally one of
productive beliefs. All inquiry must terminate in belief or disbelief or doubt; disbelief is merely a
negative belief and doubt is the true opposite of both. Believing in anything involves conceiving
of it as somehow real; when we dismiss something as unreal (disbelief), it is typically because it
somehow contradicts what we think of as real.
Some of our most fundamental and valuable beliefs do not seem sufficiently justified to be
regarded as known. These “postulates of rationality” include the convictions that every event is
caused and that the world as a whole is rationally intelligible. As he holds in “The Sentiment of
Rationality,” to say that such beliefs, however crucial, are not known, is to admit that, though they
involve a willingness to act on them, doubt as to their truth still seems theoretically possible. He
identifies four postulates of rationality as value-related, but unknowable, matters of belief; these
are God, immortality, freedom, and moral duty (Nielsen, 2012). He proceeds to deal with each of
them individually.
Philosophy Of Religion
James is arguably the most significant American philosopher of religion in intellectual
history, and many of his writings, in addition to the obligatory “Will to Believe” essay and his
book on The Varieties of Religious Experience, offer provocative insights into that area.
a. The Will to Believe in God
Because we do not naturally experience the supernatural, James, the radical empiricist,
thinks of faith in God as falling short of knowledge. Yet such faith is pragmatically meaningful to
many people, and it is reasonable to wonder whether, how, and to what extent it can be justified.
For James, the logical philosopher trained in science, both logic and science have limits beyond
which we can legitimately seek the sentiment of rationality. His notorious “Will to Believe” essay
is designed to be a defense of religious faith in the absence of conclusive logical argumentation or
scientific evidence. It focuses on what he calls a “genuine option,” which is a choice between two
hypotheses, which the believer can regard as “living” (personally meaningful), “forced” (mutually
exclusive), and “momentous” (involving potentially important consequences). Whether an option
is “genuine” is thus relative to the perspective of a particular believer. James acknowledges that
in our scientific age, there is something dubious about the voluntaristic view that, in some
circumstances, we can legitimately choose to believe in the absence of any objective justification
(Klein, 2015). However, he claims we naturally do so all the time, our moral and political ideas
being obvious examples. When you believe that your mother loves you or in the sincerity of your
best friend, you have no conclusively objective evidence.
In addition, you will never be able to secure such evidence. Yet it often seems unreasonable
to refuse to commit to believing such matters; if we did so, the pragmatic consequences would be
a more impoverished social life. Indeed, in some cases, believing and acting on that belief can
help increase the chances of the belief being true. Now let us apply this argument to religious
belief. What does religion in general propose for our belief? The two-pronged answer is that
ultimate reality is most valuable and that we are better off if we believe that. Committing to that
two-pronged belief is meaningful, as is the refusal to do so. At any given moment, I must either
make that two-pronged commitment or not; and how I experience this life, as well as prospects for
a possible after-life, may be at stake. Whether one makes that commitment or not, pragmatic
consequences can be involved. Nor should we imagine that we could avoid having to make a
choice, as the commitment not to commit is itself a commitment.
b. The Varieties of Religious Experience
If religious faith is not to be reduced to arbitrary whimsy (the “will to make believe”), it
must rest on some sort of personal experience. As psychologist and philosopher, James deliberately
defines “religion” broadly as the experiences of human individuals insofar as they see themselves
related to whatever they regard as divine (James et al, 2003). This definition indicates that religion
does not require faith in a transcendent, monotheistic God, and that it does not mandate the social
dimension of religious community. James distinguishes between “healthy-mindedness” and the
“sick soul” as two extreme types of religious consciousness, the former being characterized by
optimistic joy and the latter by a morbid pessimism. In between these extremes are “the divided
self” and the stable, well-integrated believer. James develops lengthy analyses of religious
conversion, saintliness, and mysticism.
In going beyond these, he considers what philosophy might contribute to establishing
“over-beliefs” regarding the existence and nature of the divine. He critically considers traditional
arguments for God—the cosmological argument, the argument from design, the moral argument,
and the argument from popular consensus—finding none of them particularly cogent, but
exhibiting the most respect for the argument from design. He likewise weighs in the balance and
finds wanting arguments for metaphysical and moral divine attributes, finding the latter of more
pragmatic relevance to human values, choices, and behavior than the former.
In his final lecture, he draws conclusions regarding three beliefs that experience finds in
religions in general: (1) that our sensible world is part of and derives its significance from a greater
spiritual order; (2) that our purpose is fulfilled by achieving harmonious union with it; and (3) that
prayer and spiritual communion are efficacious.
Furthermore, religions typically involve two psychological qualities in their believers: (1)
an energetic zest for living; and (2) a sense of security, love, and peace. Given that thought and
feeling both determine conduct, James thinks that different religions are similar in feeling and
conduct, their doctrines being more variable, but less essential. Most generally, these doctrines
attempt to diagnose a fundamental uneasiness about our natural state and to prescribe a solution
whereby we might be saved.
c. James’s Own Religious Views
Although James is somewhat vague regarding his own religious “over-beliefs,” they can
be pieced together from various passages. He believes there is more to reality than our natural
world and that this unseen realm generates practical effects in this world. If we call the supreme
being “God,” then we have reason to think the interpersonal relationship between God and humans
is dynamic and that God provides us with a guarantee that the moral values we strive to realize
will somehow survive us. James describes himself as a supernaturalist (rather than a materialist)
of a sort less refined than idealists and as unable to subscribe to popular Christianity (Slater, 2018).
He is unwilling to assume that God is one or infinite, even contemplating the polytheistic notion
that the divine is a collection of godlike selves.
In “The Dilemma of Determinism,” James depicts his image of God with a memorable
analogy, comparing God to a master chess player engaged in a give-and-take with us novices. We
are free to make our own moves; yet the master knows all the moves we could possibly make, the
odds of our choosing one over the others, and how best to respond to any move we choose to make.
This indicates two departures from the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God, in that the
master is interacting with us in time (rather than eternal) and does not know everything in the
future, to the extent that it is freely chosen by us.
In “Reflex Action and Theism,” James subscribes to a theistic belief in a personal God with
whom we can maintain interpersonal relations, who possesses the deepest power in reality (not
necessarily omnipotent) and a mind (not omniscient). We can love and respect God to the extent
that we are committed to the pursuit of common values. In “Is Life Worth Living?” James even
suggests that God may derive strength and energy from our collaboration (Capps, 2003).
Elsewhere, rejecting the Hegelian notion of God as an all-encompassing Absolute, he subscribes
to a God that is finite in knowledge or in power or in both, one that acts in time and has a history
and an environment, like us.
Metaphysics
a. Realms of Reality
In contrast to monists such as Hegel, James believes in multiple worlds (Bradley, 2011),
specifying seven realms of reality we can experience:
(1) the realm that serves as the touchstone of reality for most of us is the world of physical objects
of sense experience.
(2) the world of science, things understood in terms of physical forces and laws of nature, is
available to the educated.
(3) philosophy and mathematics expose us to a world of abstract truth and ideal relations.
(4) as humans, we are all subject to the distortions of commonplace illusion and prejudices.
(5) our cultures expose us to the realms of mythology and fiction.
(6) each of us has his or her own subjective opinions, which may or may not be expressed to others.
(7) the world of madness can disconnect us from the reality in which others can readily believe.
Normally we can inhabit more than one of these and be able to discriminate among them. What
we take to be real must connect with us personally because we find it interesting and/or important,
which emphasizes elements of both subjectivity and pragmatic relevance.
b. The Philosophical Importance of Metaphysics
Part of what makes James a great philosopher in the grand tradition is that, unlike so many
post-Hegelian Western philosophers, he advocates the pivotal importance of metaphysics. The
theory of reality in general provides a crucial foundational context for philosophy of human nature,
philosophy of religion, ethics, social philosophy, and so forth. Philosophy essentially is an
intellectual attempt to come to grips with reality, as he says on the first page of Pragmatism.
In its third lecture, James approaches four standard metaphysical issues using his pragmatic
method, those of (1) physical and spiritual substance, (2) materialism vs. theism as explanations
of our world, (3) whether the natural world indicates intelligent design, and (4) freedom vs.
universal determinism (Pihlstrom, 2007). For each of these, we cannot conclusively establish
where we should stand based merely on what experience discloses about the past, but can take
reasonable positions based on pragmatic anticipated future consequences. As modern philosophy
demonstrates, we can never directly and immediately experience any sort of substance; however,
we do experience physical qualities and mental events and can best make sense of them by
attributing them to bodies and minds.
The world is what it is, regardless of whether it is the result of divine activity or of the
random interactions of atoms moving in space; whether or not it was intelligently designed in the
distant past has no bearing on the fact that we experience it as we do. But a world intelligently
designed by a deity pragmatically involves the possibility of a promising future, whereas one
resulting from unconscious physical forces promises nothing more than a collapse into
meaningless obliteration. On the one hand, if everything we may do or fail to do is determined,
why bother doing anything? On the other hand, if we are free to choose at least some of our actions,
then effort can be meaningful.
In the fourth lecture, James states that our world can be viewed as one (monism) or as an
irreducible many (pluralism). There are certain ways in which we humans generate a unity of the
objects of our experience, yet the absolute unity to which monism is committed remains a
perpetually vanishing ideal. In his seventh lecture, James identifies three dimensions of reality:
(1) the objects of factual experience; (2) relationships between our sensations and our ideas and
among our ideas; and (3) the entire network of truths to which we are committed at any given time.
Again, we see here a combination of subjectivity and pragmatic relevance that views reality as a
process of development, which he calls “humanism”.
c. Monism vs. Pluralism
James intended Some Problems of Philosophy to be largely a textbook in metaphysics,
which he defines in terms of the ultimate principles of reality, both within and beyond our human
experience. Much of it concerns the issue of the one and the many, which is arguably the oldest
problem of Western philosophy and represents the split between collective monism (such as
Hegel’s) and distributive pluralism (such as James himself advocates). Monism, pursued to its
logical extreme, is deterministic, setting up a sharp dichotomy between what is necessary and what
is impossible, while pluralism allows for possibilities that may, but need not, be realized (Sidorsky,
2013). The former must be either optimistic or pessimistic in its outlook, depending on whether
the future that is determined is seen as attractive or unattractive.
In contrast, pluralism’s possibilities allow for a “melioristic” view of the future as possibly
better, depending on choices we freely make. Pluralism need not specify how much unnecessary
possibility there is in the world; by contrast, monism must say that everything about the future is
locked in from all eternity—to which pluralism says, “Ever not quite”. James is advocating what
he calls the possibility of “novelty” in the world. Pluralism, being melioristic, calls for our trusting
in and cooperating with one another in order to realize desirable possibilities that are not assured.
In his Essays in Radical Empiricism, James attempts to distance himself from the
philosophical dualism that sees physical reality (bodies) and spiritual reality (minds) as essentially
distinct. He claims that the “philosophy of pure experience” is more consonant with the theory of
novelty, indeterminism, moralism, and humanism that he advocates, though it is less than clear
why (Boehme, 2015). We never experience mind in separation from body, and he dismisses as an
illusion the notion of consciousness as substantial; however, he does not want to reject the reality
of mind as a materialist might do. So after years of opposing monism, he adopts an admittedly
vague sort of neutral (neither materialistic nor idealistic) monism that sees thoughts and things as
fundamentally the same stuff, the further definition of which eludes us.
William James’s Pragmatism
Many famous educators including John Dewey, William James were pragmatists. For
Pragmatism, “Experience’ is at the center of the universe. Hence, it lays emphasis upon man-made
ideas and values resulted by the experimental activities. The term ‘Pragmatism’ derives its origin
from a Greek word ‘Pragma’ meaning ‘Activity’ or ‘Practice’ or ‘Action’ (James, 2001). As action
gets priority over thought, Pragmatism is also known as ‘Expenditure’ which believes in
‘practicability’ or ‘utility’ depending upon the truth, reality, goodness or badness which are all
relative terms and are not predetermined or absolute. Pragmatism tends to hold the idea that the
truth/fact of yesterday needs to be experienced truly, today and tomorrow. It idealizes the activity
on the basis of its consequence over time frame. In short, it conceptualizes an inference on the
basis of changed or changing needs, circumstances and places.
Pragmatists believe that no truth is absolute and permanent as it is ever changing from time
to time and place to place and from circumstance to circumstance. Thus, their fundamental start is
“change”. Whatever was true yesterday need not be the true today. The philosophy of pragmatists
is predetermined to those ideas and values which result in utility to mankind in certain time, place
or circumstance rather than any predetermined of life. Pragmatic philosophy is a practical
philosophy having no fixed or absolute standards. Man always creates new values and education
should help him in doing so. Being practical and utilitarian school of philosophy, Pragmatism has
influenced education to the maximum extent. It has tried overcoming the limitations of other
schools like idealism and naturalism and has influenced the world to a great extent.
Principles of Pragmatism
The following according to Singh (2007) are the principles of pragmatism.
The changing nature of truth:
Pragmatists do not believe in predetermined truths. According to them truth always
changes according to time, place and situation. They also believe that a thing which is true to an
individual at a specific time, place and situation, need not be true to others or to anyone else at
some other place or time. Hence, a certain thing which was true to a person yesterday, need not be
the same for him today or will remain the same for tomorrow. In short, according to pragmatism,
truth is always changing according to times, places and situations.
Truth is formed by its results:
Pragmatists uphold that truth is not a fixed and definite entity. It is a relative term which
can be changed according to the stages of development and situations which confront a person in
his process of growth and progress. The reason for this is that change in situations throws up new
problems to be solved by new thoughts and new efforts. Out of these thoughts, only that thought
of the whole lot is true which serves to solve the problem and attain the desire results. Hence,
pragmatists firmly hold that it is the result which goes to form or build a truth. Only those things
are truth for the individuals which develop their personality to the full and which promote
individual good and welfare of others as well.
Democratic social value:
Pragmatism holds that man is a social being. He is born into society and all his development
takes place in and through society. Hence, pragmatists uphold democratic social attitudes and
values. Pragmatists also laid emphasis on the principle of utility. Pragmatism to a reasonable extent
shares utilitarian ideology which holds that the reality of a principle lies in its utility. Any idea or
thing which is useful to individuals, is proper and right. In case it is of no use, it is improper, wrong
and untrue. In other words, only those ideas and things are true, when they have a utility for man.
Things are true because they are useful.
Placing high premium on activity:
The pragmatists also attached importance to activity. This is, because it is their belief that
ideas are born out of activities. Man is an active being, he learns by his activities, which he always
engaged in on his path of life. Thus, the greatest contribution of pragmatism to education is this
principle of learning by doing.
Contribution Of Pragmatism to Education
“Activity lies at the center of all educative process. The basis of all teaching is the activity of the
child” - Foster
Education is preparation for life. Pragmatism makes a man socially efficient. They believe
that the children should not be asked to work according to predetermined goals. They should rather
determine their goals according to their needs and interests. Pragmatism is based on the psychology
of individual differences. Pragmatists want education according to aptitudes and abilities of the
individual. Every individual must be respected and education should be planned to cater his
inclinations and capacities. According to pragmatism, the theory and practice of education is based
on two main principles, namely (i) Education should have a social function and (ii) Education
should provide real life experience to the child. Broadly, pragmatism and education can be
discussed as follows:

• Every continuous experience or activity is educative and all education in fact, resides in
having such experience (Sharma, 2018). But continuous growth in experience is not the
whole education. Education is something more. It is constant reorganizing or
reconstructing of experience.
• Pragmatism provides definite aims of education. The student is prepared to live in a society
and learn skills and attitude.
• The teaching methods are based on learning by doing. The project method is the
contribution of pragmatism to modern education.
• Pragmatism encourages a democratic way to learning through purposeful and co-operative
projects and activities.
• Utility in the educative process is the first criterion. The school is expected to provide
learning experiences that are useful.
 • Education is not bound to tradition. Pragmatic philosophers advise us to test everything
through our own experience.
• The teacher has to play a very challenging role in the education process under pragmatism
and he has to be very alert and watchful.
Pragmatism And Aims of Education
Pragmatists believe that life is dynamic which is subjected to constant change; hence the
aims of education are bound to be dynamic. According to them, Education deals with human life,
so it must help the children to fulfill their biological and social needs (Sharma, 2018). Education
should enable a child to create values in his life. In the words of Ross, education must create new
values: “the main task of educator is to put the educed into a position to develop values for him”.
The aims of education as formulated by the Pragmatists are the following:
To create new values:
The Pragmatists do not believe in the theory of any fixed aim of education. In their opinion,
the aim of education is to create new values and the act of teacher is to help himself develop new
values.
To enable pupils to gather experience through activity:
For the creation of new values, activity and experience are essential. Education should
therefore, provide physical, intellectual, moral and aesthetic activities as the media for the creation
of new values.
To help the pupil to adjust with him and the society:
The other important aim of education according to pragmatism is to help the pupil to make
adjustment with himself and the society.
To help the pupil to reconstruct his experience:
Every individual has to solve different types of complex problems in his life. So, another
important aim of education, according to Pragmatism is to enable the pupil to form such an outlook
about life as can help to tackle successfully the different problems of his life in future,
To make all round development of the pupil:
All round development of the individual is also an important aim of education. The
individual develops physically, mentally, socially and aesthetically.
Pragmatism And Curriculum
In the field of curriculum development, the following principles have been prescribed by the
pragmatists (Biesta, 2018).
1. Principle of Utility:
According to this principle only those subjects, activities and experiences should be included
in the curriculum which are useful to the present needs of the child and also meet the future
expectations of adult life as well. The subjects are such as Language, Physical wellbeing, Physical
training, Geography, History, Science, Agriculture and Home Science for girls.
2. Principle of Interest:
According to this principle, only those activities and experiences where the child takes interest
are of four varieties namely (i) Interest in conversation (ii) Interest in investigation (iii) Interest in
construction and (iv) Interest in creative expression. Keeping these varieties of interest in view at
the primary stage, the curriculum should include writing, counting, art, craft-work, natural science
and other practical work of simple nature.
3. Principle of Experience:
The third principle of pragmatics curriculum is the child’s activity, vocation and experience.
All these three should be closely integrated. The curriculum should consist of such varieties of
learning experiences which promote original thinking and freedom to develop social and
purposeful attitudes.
4. Principle of Integration:
Pragmatic curriculum deals with the integration of subjects and activities. Pragmatists want to
construct flexible, dynamic and integrated curriculum which aids the developing child and the
changing society more and more as he/she needs, demands and situation requires.
Pragmatism And Method of Teaching
Teaching-learning process is social and bi-polar process. Learning takes place as an
interaction between the teacher and the taught. Pragmatism gives priority to the taught. Similarly,
between the thought and action, it gives priority to action. They prefer practical over theory-based
teaching–learning process. The pragmatists have completely discarded the conventional method
of teaching and laid emphasis on the invention of new methods (Margolis, 2002). The whole
emphasis of method of teaching in pragmatism is on child, not the book of the teacher or the
subject. The dominant interest of the child is ‘to do’ and ‘to make’. The method should be flexible
and dynamic.
Pragmatists believe that minds of different children are different. Hence, we cannot have a
fixed method of teaching which can be useful to all situations. Learning by doing and the project
methods have an important place in the methods of teaching proposed by the pragmatists. All
learning must come as a product of action. Learning by doing makes a person creative, confident
and co-operative. They also put on emphasis on the discovery and enquiry method. The techniques
which follow the principle of learning by doing can be used according to pragmatists view.
Pragmatism And Teacher
In the opinion of pragmatists, the duty of the teacher is to create such an environment in
the school where pupils will have to face different problems relating to real life and will take
interest in the solution of those problems. Pragmatism regards teacher as a helper, guide and
philosopher. The chief function of a pragmatic teacher is to suggest problems to his pupil and to
stimulate them to find by themselves the solution which will work (Sharma, 2018). The teacher
must provide opportunities for the natural development of innate qualities if the children. His main
task is to suggest problem to his student/pupils and to guide them to find out he solutions.
Pragmatism And Discipline
Pragmatists have opposed against the imposition of rules and regulations to pupils. They
believe in social and personal discipline, in their opinion if we give them opportunities to
participate in different types of collective activities spontaneous discipline will grow in them.
Pragmatists believe that play and work should be combined and this combination will perform a
mental attitude and discipline (Bara, 2011). By taking part in such activities the qualities like
tolerance, sympathy, mutual respect, attitude of service will be developed in them. Discipline
cannot be maintained through force and domination. Children should be left free in order to
develop freely and harmoniously.
According to pragmatists rewards and punishment are of no significance in the process of
learning. They believed that no moral standard of values is already established. The philosophy
believes in discipline, but the discipline should not be the outcome of external force it should be
backed by freedom and joy. It advocates on discipline based on the principles of child’s activities
and interests. It upholds discipline based on social and mutual understanding. It believes in
engaging the children free and real activities of human life.
Conclusion
The practical outlook and utilitarian philosophy of Pragmatism has tremendously
influenced the education system in the present world. The activity-based teaching and learning
method have turned the educational process to become purposeful. It has certainly infused a sense
of reality in education. This experimental character of education enunciates the values in a child
through his ideas. Pragmatism makes him optimistic, energetic, creative and active. According to
Pragmatism, education is not the dynamic side of philosophy as advocated by the idealists. It is
the philosophy which emerges from an educational practice. Every individual has a social self and
he can be best developed in and through society. Thus, we can conclude by saying that that
Pragmatism has brought democracy in education. The students learn the technique of managing
their own responsibilities which would prepare them to face the different challenges of real life. It
makes a man socially efficient i.e. he can determine his goals according to his needs and interests.
References
Bara, B. G. (2011). Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication.
Berlinger, W. (2007). Teacher Training. Retrieved from
https://www.isres.org/books/chapters/Research_Highlights_in_Education_and_Science_2017_1_
18-12-2017.pdf
Biesta, G. (2018). Pragmatising the curriculum: Bringing knowledge back into the curriculum
conversation, but via pragmatism. In Creating Curricula: Aims, Knowledge and Control (pp. 40-
60). Routledge.
Boehme, A. J. (2015). Spirituality and religion: the shift from east to west and beyond.
Missio Apostolica, 23, 21-36.
Bradley, F. H. (2011). Essays on truth and reality. Cambridge University Press.
Capps, D. (2003). James E. Dittes: A professional portrait. Pastoral Psychology, 52, 17-49.

Caruso, G. D. (2012). Free will and consciousness: A determinist account of the illusion of
free will. Lexington Books.

Chamling Rai, P., & Lama, R. (2020). Pragmatism and Its Contribution to Education.
International Journal of Current Research and Technology, 8(3), 1-8. Retrieved from
https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2003258.pdf
Gale, R. M. (2005). The Philosophy of William James: An Introduction. New York:
Cambridge University Press. Retrived from https://www.biblio.com/book/philosophy-william-
james-introduction-gale/d/1356809386
James, M., Carrette, J., James, W., & Taylor, E. (2003). The varieties of religious
experience: A study in human nature. Routledge.

James, W. (2001). What pragmatism means. In Writing New England: An Anthology from
the Puritans to the Present (pp. 80-93). Harvard University Press.
Klein, A. (2015). Science, Religion, and “The Will to Believe”. HOPOS: The Journal of
the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 72-117.
Kloppenberg, J. T. (1996). Pragmatism: An old name for some new ways of thinking?. The
Journal of American History, 83(1), 100-138.
Margolis, J. (2002). Reinventing pragmatism: American philosophy at the end of the
twentieth century. Cornell University Press.
Nielsen, G. M. (2012). The norms of answerability: Social theory between Bakhtin and
Habermas. State University of New York Press.
 Pihlstrom, S. (2007). Metaphysics with a human face: William James and the prospects of
pragmatist metaphysics. William James Studies, 2.
Pomerleau, W. P. (n.d.). William James. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
from https://iep.utm.edu/james-o/#H3
Richardson, R. D. (2006). William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved from https://www.abebooks.com/9780618433254/William-
James-Maelstrom-American-Modernism-0618433252/plp
Rooney, P. (1993). Feminist-pragmatist revisioning of reason, knowledge, and philosophy.
Hypatia, 8(2), 15-37.
Sharma, S., Devi, R., & Kumari, J. (2018). Pragmatism in education. International Journal
of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 5(1), 1549-1554.
Sidorsky, D. (2013). Monistic ideals, plural values, and the limits of philosophy. Capitalism
& Society, 8(2).
Singh, J. A. (2007). Philosophical Foundation of Education. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing
Corporation. Retrived from https://www.abebooks.com/9788131301869/Philosophical-
Foundation-Education-K-Singh-8131301869/plp
Slater, M. R. (2018). Religious faith, self-unification, and human flourishing in James and
Dewey. In The Oneness Hypothesis: Beyond the Boundary of Self (pp. 212-233). Columbia
University Press.