Young William James Thinking
Page 29
experience of his 1860s hope to generate faith that some vocational results
would emerge from his daily searching work: “[E]ven when you seem to
yourself to be making no pro gress, . . . if you but go on in your own uninter-
esting way they must bloom out in their good time.” Just as the later essay
was not simply advice to create beliefs wholesale, so his youthful urge to
reduce worry about results did not ignore physical factors and tangible
constraints, nor blithely reject planning for future vocational directions.
Instead, letting results float up spurred his motivation to face the future
despite pres ent discouragements— and even to work within them— because
it “gave me a willingness to work where I saw no object to be gained.” This
outlook, he reported, had a “potent effect in my inner life.” Even when he
had little yet to show for it, he felt confident that in time “the result would
come up as it were of its own accord.” When writing to his fellow student of
physiology, Henry Bowditch, he offered the solace that, “however discour-
aging the work of each day may seem, stick at it long enough, and you’ll
wake up some morning,— a physiologist.” In Princi ples of Psy chol ogy (1890),
James virtually quotes his private writing of twenty- two years earlier: “Let
no youth have any anxiety about the upshot of his education. . . . If he keep
faithfully busy each hour of the working day, he may safely leave the final
result to itself.” Before he had a label for it or details of argumentation to
The Ancient Art of Natu ral Grace 161
describe it, young James had developed his own private will to believe in
the vocational path he was on, even though he had few results yet in evi-
dence. Already in the 1860s, his nascent theory provided a way to cope with
limited knowledge and ambiguity, and this posture would allow him to act
with purpose, a teleological orientation, but without the expectation of
prior or ideal goals guiding that purpose. His would be a future- oriented
teleology because those results and that purpose would be in a future still
in the making, a usable theory for young James.47 He could not escape being
reflective, so he turned to reflective solutions for the prob lems of reflection.
While speculating about his personal direction, James focused on a key
ele ment for his goal: “[A]ll moral action, of course, even if its direction be
distorted shows the possibility of Freedom.” Such freedom would allow for
working toward the future with deliberate choices along the way rather
than by following fixed goals. But it was one thing to counsel others about
letting results float up; how could he summon his own spirit of freedom
when he felt so burdened by indecision, theoretical confusion, vocational
constraints, and health prob lems? In his private writing, his mind raced
ahead of his current circumstances as he hoped for decisive action despite
the immediate burdens of his current fate. These constraints on his free-
dom had created, as he said with studied understatement, his gap “between
Will and per for mance.” He used German words to amplify his points:
“[T]he shall (sollen), . . . in the shape of fate [including] moral or natu ral law,
is to the individual . . . despotic & oppressive,” because “the person, considered
f[ro]m. the side of . . . shall, is limited, determined to a par tic u lar course.”
By contrast, the willful choices based on individual intentions (associated
with the German word wol en) can potentially bring freedom from fate, since
“the person [who] wills is unlimited.” His attention to will was not, however,
as yet very liberating in practice since these thoughts reminded him of his
reflections on Hamlet as an example of a modern character struggling with
“an inadequate will,” just like his own. His inquiries about German words
and the Danish prince reminded him of the weakness of his own will even
as he longingly admired the significance of volition’s power in theory.
Through advice to friends, and to himself, he had set up his goal, still on
theoretical grounds, for acting with will, first by focusing on small daily
steps and letting go of expectations for results. However, as long as his will
remained weak, his admiration for volitional power would leave him as just
another modern case of mere longing— with a deci ded “disproportion . . . be-
tween Will & per for mance. ”48 James could only apply his theory of will
162 Young William James Thinking
once he could overcome his own Hamlet prob lem. He could not just talk
himself into a strong will; already showing his philosophical inclinations,
reflective James needed a framework to justify its role.
The Stoic Will within the Vast Machinery of the World
In his admiring glances at the ancients, James reached for their inspira-
tions but found them difficult to grasp. The natu ral grace of Greek art pro-
vided models for living comfortably with natu ral experiences that would
enable action without worry, but without a practical framework, he could
not find a way to achieve this stance, until he discovered the ancient phi-
losophy of Stoicism. Its advocates posited divine immanence in the world
with proposals to adjust personal lives to the order of nature—in par tic u lar,
Stoics urged contentment with things that could not be changed. This an-
cient philosophy served effectively as a major religious orientation in the
Greco- Roman world during the centuries before and after the birth of Je-
sus. Stoic insights complemented the spiritual message James found in Greek
art. Without seeking transcendental redemption, the Stoic goal, as James
noticed, was to live “a life in which your individual will becomes so harmo-
nized to nature’s will” that you “cheerfully . . . acquiesce in what ever she
assigns to you.” He did not yet know his own vocational or personal pur-
pose, but he admired the Stoic proposal to quell the longing, “knowing that
you serve some purpose in her vast machinery wh[ich]. will never be revealed
to you.” 49 Proposing willful commitment despite uncertainties, Stoicism
spoke directly to James’s chief concerns in the 1860s.
James’s first known encounter with Stoicism was in 1863, when he re-
corded pithy insights of Epictetus, a Greek sage living in Rome from the late
first to second century ce. The Stoic phi los o pher lived in simplicity, early on
literally as a slave in Rome, and then, with few possessions, as a teacher
without even writing down his thoughts. His students eagerly recorded his
teachings, although he himself had little concern for publication or posterity,
because his passion was for philosophy as a guide to life. We have no power
over the world’s impact on us, he insisted in his power ful oral discourses, but
“we, not externals, are the masters of our judgments.” James became an
eager student of Epictetus as well, recording many of his teachings in a
notebook also containing notes on the evolution of ancient religions, mod-
ern theories of scientific materialism, and Christian theology. James indi-
cated his understanding of the person
al uses that Stoics made for philo-
sophical reflection when he paraphrased Epictetus’s recommendation that
The Ancient Art of Natu ral Grace 163
a phi los o pher’s “first card should be the ease and quiet of his own breast.”
The young science student found inspiration for his emerging resolution
not to worry about results in Epictetus’s advice that it would be “a less evil
for you that your servant or child should be vicious than that you your self
should be perpetually unhappy with an anxious care to prevent it.” James
took to heart Epictetus’s prediction that “I am in his power who can gratify
my wishes and inflict my fears,” as he was trying to strengthen his will to
fortify his own direction in life. 50
Some of Epictetus’s words that James recorded had par tic u lar resonance
in the early 1860s; Epictetus had lived as a slave, physically in the power of
others, but he spoke of a form of slavery beyond legal title: “Not to be a slave
then, I must have neither Desire nor aversion for anything in the power of
others.” While clearly not as severe as chattel slavery, such psychological
slavery from giving up one’s own thoughts and feelings also brought a ser-
vile posture with passive subordination to another’s will. In the antislavery
James family, younger brothers Wilkie and Bob worked against the Ameri-
can institution of slavery itself, and William, more like his father, portrayed
the intellectual burdens of slavery. When he recorded the words of Epicte-
tus in 1863, the Northern war purpose was turning toward abolition of
slavery; William James did not serve in the war, but he shows his affiliation
with the in de pen dent spirit of the free- labor ideology that would dominate
the Union cause, here expressed in the stringent terms of Stoic self-
understanding: “[D]espise . . . every thing out of your own power.” The Ameri-
can version of this focus on personal power spurred the military push for
total war against the power of slaveholders and fostered the African Ameri-
can quest for personal liberty, and it would encourage the private initiative
of American capitalism. 51 Young James’s version of this ideology, expressed
in the accent of ancient philosophy, was for personal direction; Stoicism
would help him develop the power of his will.
When James returned in 1866 from his natu ral history expedition in
Brazil to resume the study of medicine, he was again attracted to Stoicism.
His brother Henry pointed out, in a review of a recent edition of Epictetus,
that Stoicism was a philosophy that was “in effect not a philosophy” but a
set of insights fostering the view that one’s “attitude of mind was a refuge”;
Henry held out par tic u lar praise for Marcus Aurelius, a student of Epicte-
tus. That same year, William James “began . . . to read the thoughts of the
Roman Stoic Marcus Aurelius.” James even spoke of Marcus’s Meditations
as if it were good medicine, with doses of it taken slowly and deliberately,
164 Young William James Thinking
“two or three pages a day.” He was already thinking about the themes he
would state with admiration about the Greeks in his diary two years later:
Marcus Aurelius “certainly had an invincible soul” because he lived a “life
according to nature.” During this season when the Civil War was still a
fresh memory, James enlisted the Stoic philosophy to address his commit-
ment to philanthropic purpose in almost military terms: “The stoic feeling
of being a sentinel obeying orders without knowing the General’s plans is a
noble one.” The Stoic “General” was fate, and James’s “sentinel” position
was scientific study. Even before starting his studies, he had already de-
clared, “I want . . . to do some good, no matter what” with science. Now he
was training to make that hope real, and Stoicism gave him a framework for
understanding that, when “I make my nick” in some vocational contribu-
tion whether large or small, this would be the way to “assert my real ity.” He
wrote to his friend Ward urging the Stoic outlook with words that also
served as advice to himself: “I think old Mark’s perpetual yearnings for pa-
tience and equanimity & kindliness w[oul]d. do your heart good.” Marcus’s
message was to live life “easily & patiently, without feeling responsible for
[the] future.” While James still did not know which career he would take
up, the ancient perspective as reinforced by Stoic philosophy was helping
him to realize that these uncertainties were not some burden to be over-
come; instead, his path could itself become the goal. Inspired by Stoicism,
he would continue his daily tasks, namely learning human physiology with
excursions into philosophy; such efforts, “no matter . . . his lot in life,” as the
Stoics asserted, would “be a pleasing spectacle.” These ancient inspirations
gave him “a pretty practical contentment,” even though “I cannot help feel-
ing as if I were insulting Heaven.” 52 He realized that his reflections were
taking him beyond the religious mainstream.
These ideas could well seem like an insult to mainstream American
Chris tian ity. Stoicism was founded in Athens three hundred years before
Jesus; although Marcus Aurelius lived more than a century after the inau-
guration of the Common Era marked by the birth of Jesus, he felt almost no
impact from Chris tian ity, since this fast- growing religion from Palestine
was still a marginal movement within the Roman Empire in 121 ce when
Marcus was born. The Greek phi los o pher Zeno of Citium, who first devel-
oped Stoicism, came of age shortly after the reign of Alexander the Great,
whose fierce conquests also created cosmopolitan mingling of cultures. Zeno
took worldly existence as the context for his program of moral action; and in
the chaos of the social changes around him, he advocated personal disci-
The Ancient Art of Natu ral Grace 165
pline to find happiness by remaining steadfast to one’s internal state no
matter what was happening all around. Cicero in first- century ce Rome
was instrumental in disseminating Stoicism in the Roman Empire, where
its outlooks reinforced popu lar Roman virtues. Marcus encountered Sto-
icism from travel to Greece during one of his military campaigns and still
more deeply through the teachings of his teacher, Epictetus. 53
At the core of Stoicism was a belief that every thing exists from the power
of and in conformity with universal Nature, also named with words that
can be translated as Reason, Log os, Destiny, Creative Fire, God, Providence,
Soul of the World, or just the All. This spiritual power in the universe was
infinite in space and time, like a set of rational laws of development, or con-
ditions of all existence; although this power was not personal, that did not
displace discussion of the gods, especially Zeus. The Stoics approached the
gods as did most Greeks, as the personal repre sen ta tion of abstract forces of
nature. References to Zeus or translations of the All as God were particu-
larly popu lar in the Christian era because they contributed to a perception
that Stoicism was not incompatible with Chris tian ity or was even a historical
stage toward the religion of Jesus Christ. Emphasizing the interpretation of
pre- Christian sensibilities anxious because of their lack of transcendent
references, Matthew Arnold even presented “Marcus Aurelius . . . agitated,
stretching out his arms for something beyond.” Stoicism did in fact influ-
ence Chris tian ity, especially in standards of morality and in re spect for the
individual. 54 However, Stoicism was decidedly unlike Chris tian ity in its com-
patibility with polytheism and its commitment to an immanent spiritual
force, distinct from a transcendent and mono the istic God.
The Stoic philosophy had three aspects: physics, logic, and ethics. These
could be separated only for teaching and learning; in life, they intermingled
seamlessly. Physics dealt not only with the view of physical things themselves
but also with the structure of the cosmos that housed them, somewhat like
modern theology. Because Reason pervaded the world, it was immanent in
matter, imparting harmony in all parts and within the whole— just what
James detected in Greek sculpture. “This mutual integration is a universal
princi ple,” as Marcus put it, adding that “a myriad of causes combine into
the single Cause which is destiny.” This singleness was not a personal being
but the action of “all things . . . with one movement,” each serving as the
“cooperating cause . . . of all” in the “structure of the web.” There was no
absolute distinction between Reason and the rest of the universe; Reason
was simply the most cohesive and creative component— and humanity’s
166 Young William James Thinking
path for understanding. The Soul of the World sustained and pervaded all
things, which contained the creative fire in degrees: inanimate things with
the least; plants with more; and animals with still more in their rudimentary
ability to reason; with their rational capacity, humans bear some similar-
ity to the Soul of the World itself. Marcus described it as “that inward di-
vinity, that particle of himself, which Zeus has given to every man.” The
human ability to reason suggested the second aspect of Stoic philosophy,
logic, which referred to the rules for finding truth. Rigorous truth claims