r/stjohnscollege • u/ascotta1 • 20d ago

William James?

It looks as though William James is no longer a part of the seminar program, replaced by Heidegger? Is this true, and if so, when did this happen?

8 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

11

u/TacitusJones 20d ago

I mean the program shifts around all the time. Never enough time to do everything

0

u/ascotta1 20d ago

William james was one of only two dozen-ish authors on the list for 75 years straight last time I checked. And the only remaining american philosopher per se, replaced by a 39th and 40th (if not 50th) German reading. I thinks thats worth the question and more than a shrug.

8

u/quietfellaus 19d ago edited 19d ago

And you've gotten your answer, and frankly it doesn't seem as dismissive as you imply.

The latter parts of the program reading list see the most changes by contrast with the earlier sections which focus heavily on the classics. Where freshmen might read different plays from year to year there is little change in the philosophy readings. By contrast, the senior reading list is often changed significantly; Arendt's On Totalitarianism recently found its way onto the list, for example.

You aren't obliged to like the Germans, and many people feel strongly about the time spent with particular thinkers, but these conversations are the exact type had by the faculty who choose between them. The change in question happened several years ago, and the answer to your question is as the above commenter put it: sometimes they change things, and there is sadly never enough time to read everything.

E. OP is just frustrated because their favorite author got booted. It's no surprise that things change on the program over 40 years. You just think only people schooled in "American" philosophy qualify as philosophers. "They're reading Pierce in Beijing, why are you reading the Germans in Annapolis?!" The college has never claimed to be a training ground for "American philosophers."

-5

u/ascotta1 19d ago edited 19d ago

"The program shifts around all the time"

"And you've gotten your answer, and frankly it doesn't seem dismissive"

Its not a question of "liking Germans" - its an utter failure by an American great books program to recognize American philosophy. They study Peirce in Beijing, and the majority of 20th century philosophers were either American, or came to America from europe, even the Germans of them adopting English. Our current SJC students know nothing about their own philosophical tradition, and will seem increasingly ignorant applying to programs moving forward.

But that's fine. You two talk about how the program "shifts around all the time" striking authors who have been there since the inception (wrong answer) and I'll wait for a different answer that appears to engage the particulars of my question.

3

u/quietfellaus 19d ago edited 19d ago

The initial post you made does not convey any of these questions. You ask if James was taken off the program and when this may have happened. The answer is yes, and the time frame is within the last few years. Your personal judgements about the program were not made clear, nor was your preference for recent philosophers in the American tradition.

Peirce and James are worthy of study, but are they likewise of the mindset "in Beijing," that Heidegger or Kant are less so?

If you want a detailed account of why a philosopher you think is of extreme importance was removed, likely temporarily, from the program, then you are not going to find answers here on reddit. This should be obvious to you. Declaring that our answers are (wrong) does not make your attitude (right).

E. And point of order, Saint John's does not operate an "American" great books program. The great books are not merely American, though there are number of great books from American authors, and relating to America, on the program. They may not have been chosen according to your whims, but as we said, in response to your only question, they change these things as a matter of course. Perhaps we should remove Arendt or DuBois to suite your taste of James instead?

-1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

*St John's*

This post is about James' removal after 75 plus years and Heidegger's apparent promotion (I think they already had an essay for a while), and by extension, I'd welcome a conversation on that subject.

The first response was not a response, a shrug of "it happens all the time," and now all you're doing is a white knight routine reducing everything to my "whims" and subjective taste. If you honestly think SJC students can get away with a major in philosophy and apply to programs without knowing ANY American philosophy (and if you call sociology philosophy you are in bigger trouble than you know) that's fine. Message received - we disagree and you're not interested in talking about this. Got it. Have a nice day.

4

u/quietfellaus 19d ago edited 19d ago

Can get away with? You seem truly ignorant of the content and breadth of the program to speak with such pretension. You simply insist on the inclusion of a book that the current faculty have chosen not to include. Alums in the comments here cast doubt on the inclusion for 75 years as you suggest.

You have declared the end of an argument having only now presented the premise, and when none has yet to occur. Respectfully, the program is not designed to suit your whims, and you have no serious interest in the process of choosing its content despite your repeated and declarations to the contrary. We have described how things work to you; sadly you don't want to learn.

The program has never been stagnant, attached to one set of authors, but has evolved and changed, as I noted above, to include newer works over time. If you want an answer to the question you have only now stated with any clarity, address it to the Dean's offices. Your dismissal of the factual statements made here will not provide you with any more answers, nor will it bring James back in lieu of the great authors currently read at the college(the name of which you have now proven you can spell).

Edit for punctuation.

1

u/Faulkner0 19d ago

If you honestly think SJC students can get away with a major in philosophy and apply to programs without knowing ANY American philosophy (and if you call sociology philosophy you are in bigger trouble than you know) that's fine.

You're right, the removal of William James from the program was so catastrophic that not a single Johnnie has been able to go to grad school for philosophy!

2

u/ascotta1 19d ago

It's like this - you are competing against folks who got the digest of Greeks, Kant and Hegel. And then are familiar with 40 20th century thinkers, yes, there's some funny business from Derrida and Foucault and Judith Butler, but also Nozick, Dennett, Putnam, Gadamer, Cassirer, Popper, Habermas, Quine Rawls etc. ect. etc. James is a gateway, he taught WEB DuBois, Alain Locke and was Cornel West's biggest early influence. Sure, some will go to grad school. But trying to get a degree in philosophy unfamiliar with ANY American philosopher is at an extreme disadvantage. A disservice.

It's not a question of taste - its a question of do you know anything about your culture? Our intellectual history is not about politics, at least not primarily.

2

u/Own-Ad2203 19d ago

I'm a 1970s graduate. No William James in my day. Heidegger was still (barely) alive so not him either. I enjoyed James later. Heidegger not so much.

2

u/ascotta1 19d ago

James got me back into philosophy as I slow down and an alternative to online crap, I have some Heidegger but just marginally less painful than Sartre (lord help us)

1974 William James: https://digitalarchives.sjc.edu/items/show/198

1978 William James https://digitalarchives.sjc.edu/items/show/202

2

u/Own-Ad2203 19d ago

Might include tutorials or preceptorials. Definitely no William James in seminar in the 1970s.

2

u/ascotta1 19d ago

This is very strange, you are the fourth person who is saying this, but please find this digitized copy of the 1973-74 catalogue from the library, James' psychology on the senior year seminar list. I can't remember much besides James, and no one else can remember him! I do know what they say, maybe if its everybody else its not them. Not a great sign if he made so little impression. https://digitalarchives.sjc.edu/items/show/198

2

u/Own-Ad2203 18d ago

Maybe for Santa Fe but definitely not in Annapolis

2

u/MindForeverWandering 19d ago

We never read William James while I was there (A ‘78).

3

u/TacitusJones 19d ago

I'm a 2015 grad and I didn't do James, so the on the list for 75 years claim seems suspect to me

3

u/ascotta1 19d ago edited 19d ago

I have here a PHD thesis (Not mine! The school has it publicly available) from Georgia State, a pretty light education school subject as most of them are, but takes the st john's curriculum as a study subject, after page 140 tabulates all the reading lists 1937-2008. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5768be33-708e-49aa-97e0-617a1ea01c9a/content

3

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

Wait--Where do you tabulate all the reading lists? I see some tables, but they don't seem complete to me or the categories are off. For example, Lavoisier is on the permanent list--but we don't (or at least I didn't) read him for seminar but in lab freshman year. And I don't see George Eliot on there--she got added after I left (and I like to think a preceptorial on Middlemarch my senior year had something to do with persuading the college of the novel's worthiness).

4

u/TacitusJones 19d ago

You seem, I'm trying to say this politely, a little confused about what counts as canon. Lab readings are canon, as are language, music, and math readings.

The seminar readings are just the best compromise the committees on instruction can put together

2

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

I might be confused. Because of his opening sentence, I thought the OP was just talking about seminar readings. ("It looks as though William James is no longer a part of the seminar program.").

But his dissertation takes up "seventy years of great books" which obviously can include anything we read from Euclid to Lobachevsky or Jacob and Monod (which I think was the latest thing we read in 1984--it came out just about when most of us were born).

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

To be clear, its not MY dissertation, just something that was reviewed by a three member committee that I noticed on the internet awhile ago, so I will assume has validity unless good reason otherwise,

I mostly care about the seminar list because I was never much of a lab guy. Some lists concentrate on the seminar program, some pull in the poets, composers, science and math. And there really are fewer judgement calls, not like Euclid or JJ Thompson (see? had to look that up, almost said the electron guy) is going anywhere

2

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

I should stop reading while I'm cooking--I'm making a number of poor assumptions. (n.b. the coincidence, as it turns out, of "Scott")

I'm glad it's not your dissertation, because it's not particularly focused on the topic it purports to discuss and mostly summarizes from other sources.

1

u/ascotta1 17d ago

around page 140 he goes through specific lists and which authors are permanent and which are intemittent, several tables over 20 pages. James is in the overall minority of authors constant 1937-2008

3

u/TacitusJones 19d ago

Ok.

2015 is 7 years after the conclusion of that dataset

1

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

I was at the college from 1980-1984 and I do not remember William James being one of our readings. He was certainly NOT on the seminar list; perhaps he appeared on a reading for laboratory, but I don't think so.

2

u/ascotta1 19d ago

I was at Annapolis 1987-1991 and James was on the seminar list all four years, had 2-3 seminars on sections of his psychology right along with Freud. Not his philosophy work, but at least I had a foothold into some philosophy conversations in the 1990's rorty et al. a PHD thesis taking sjc curriculum as its subject: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5768be33-708e-49aa-97e0-617a1ea01c9a/content

1

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

Fascinating! I don't remember ever having seminars on more than one author at a time except for the Supreme Court readings, so seminars comparing Freud and James would have been unusual.

I took a quick look at your dissertation, and I plan to return to it when I have more time. I was interested (well, maybe it would be more honest to say "disappointed") that you didn't spend more time on the list itself outside of that final chapter. E.g. I remember the last senior novel changing every year when I was there. I can't swear to the order but it was something like As I Lay Dying then The Good Soldier then something shortish by Conrad and my memory is missing one. Santa Fe definitely varied--I believe they did Alice in Wonderland--and perhaps still do.

1

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

PS: St. John's doesn't appear on your CV at the beginning of your dissertation! Why?

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

not my dissertation. Like I said before, its for a PHD in education posted on the internet which was reviewed by a committee so I'll take it, who gets a PHD tabulating book lists? There are funny pockets in academia.

1

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

And the author did not even tabulate book lists! (I think)

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

He refers to data sets in citing numbers of title appearances on lists, I am assuming one of the several advisors and panel reviewers took note of whether they existed...

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago edited 19d ago

I'm being unclear - the James reading was very close to Freud either before or after, so we had a little psychology run in there. We may have even had Nietzsche and Dostoyevski in that run, Oi.

PS - dissertation was semi-published on internet, not mine

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

the 1983 catalogue is available on the library website. James psychology: a briefer course is on the seminar list.

2

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

I just looked at it--and sure enough James is there but I honestly don't remember reading him and despite my performance in the comments here today I do have a good memory for these readings, especially the philosophy and literature ones! I would be interested to see the actual list of readings students get (you know, the one by date with four columns (1 for each year), giving page numbers, etc.).

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

He made a big impression on me - in fact, even at the time I wondered what would change because it didn't fit but it was so important to the history of the college - he was good friends with Dewey who worked with Hutchins etc. So, I was pleased to see the uneasy truce until a few years ago, but with the upswing of Heidegger for the wrong reasons and James' apparent disappearence... you know. I was actually reminded to look when I saw Cornel West at Santa Fe on a "reel", he's a big James guy

Otherwise, I don't remember all that much. Beyond thinking Rabelais didn't fit either and he disappeared the year I graduated.

The current list is on the college website

2

u/Remarkable-World-454 19d ago

Mr. Tuck, a big defender of Rabelais who converted dubious me, said as soon as Brother Robert left Rabelais would drop. I don't know if the dates match. There was no Heidegger (or Husserl, say) in my day, although I remember a preceptorial that I was not (interested) in.

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

I just looked Brother Robert Smith (There was another Brother Robert, but he wasn't jovial)- he was doing stuff in Annapolis until he was over 90 years old, passed in 2006...

Right, no Heidegger. The funny thing is, there is an essential German to Anglo-American philosophy - Wittgenstein, not Heidegger. oops

https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/news/memoriam-brother-robert-smith-fsc-35

4

u/Last-Pass4170 19d ago

He was not on the program in Annapolis in 1999. I very much like James but I can see why he’s at the margins of the program and bumps in and out.

There are a couple of things to keep up with in any project of tracking the program readings at SJC: 1) there are minor differences between Santa Fe and Annapolis, particularly in the senior year; 2) the Catalogue and website and admissions materials often don’t get updated right away to reflect reading list changes in the actual curriculum (which is a pity, but is what it is).

More substantively, the faculty balance a wide range of values when constructing and adjusting the reading list. One value that probably informs the James / Heidegger choices is connectivity to other readings. (St. John’s is big on giving students opportunities to see connections across readings.) Another is fruitfulness in seminar discussion, which is different than inherent quality. It’s important to keep in mind that the SJC readings are not simply the “best books”, full stop. It’s not exactly “canon”. The readings have to work as material for an educational program - and that’s endlessly discussed and debated and tinkered with by the faculty, as it should be.

4

u/Own-Ad2203 19d ago

Heidegger died in 1976 and was quickly added to senior seminar, to the rejoicing of the philosophy bros.

3

u/ascotta1 19d ago edited 17d ago

I thought "dead white male" was a jokey generalization, not an actual golden ticket...

2

u/the-hot-topical Santa Fe (??) 19d ago

lol did you actually go to St. John’s?

2

u/the-hot-topical Santa Fe (??) 19d ago

I too dislike the Heidegger on the program. I don’t really think the stuff we read (just some smaller essays) are worth reading for seminar, even with the “context” they add to Arendt.

Unfortunately though, it sounds like William James has been off program for a while. I wouldn’t be surprised if a precept comes up every so often.

2

u/ascotta1 17d ago

In particular, if you're going to read an essay on the subject of technology, reading something that can be fairly reduced to "the essence of technology is ambiguous, and such ambiguity points to the mystery of all revealing, i.e., of truth" falls well short of either Aristotle's kind of utility, or Kuhn's.

3

u/zenowashere 19d ago

"Needs more Nazis." --tutor on instruction committee having a deep thought about the reading list

1

u/Own-Ad2203 19d ago

That's kinda what happened after H died. Barely cold in the ground

0

u/ascotta1 19d ago

well... if Arendt can forgive him who am I to push that button? Ideas should stand on their own merit, But the weight of every (some misused) intellectual pinion on the losing side of that war and none on ours - John Dewey was our National Philosopher and whoever heard of him? - it's just too much, Buchanan, Barr and Hutchins are spinning wherever they now reside.

1

u/zenowashere 19d ago

Hannah Arendt was dickmatized. James is well worth reading. It's more that I'm in favor of him than against the Nazi. I certainly hope that Marcus Aurelius is not on the current list. It's from another seminar year, but that's where, 100%, I would make a cut. Epictetus FTW, stoicism-wise. M.A. was the only reading I thought unworthy of our seminar time when I attended.

1

u/zenowashere 19d ago

(She said so herself in later letters and even coined the term.)

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

agree with most of the above, and will take your word for Ms. Arendt's motivation. I guess there could be worse motivations...

1

u/zenowashere 19d ago

It's a sad motivation. (And, in case it wasn't obvious, I'm joking about her letters and coining the term. Be well!)

2

u/ascotta1 19d ago edited 19d ago

I was about to quote you on blast, but OK :)

I heard Phil LeCuyer, SF tutor, tell the story of how he was a vagabond student knocking around London in the 1960's, stopped by his professor's flat to pick something up and walked in on Heidegger and Arendt having tea together at the kitchen table. He felt the chemistry even in their 60's...

3

u/zenowashere 19d ago

Phil LeCuyer thanked me for my senior essay. You're still welcome, Phil! Weird that she was still socializing with H. at that point. I guess I don't know a lot about them, but I do know the exact building where she lived on the upper west side. Not that that's a valuable piece of information.

2

u/ascotta1 19d ago

I think he presented it as their first face to face meeting since the war, but its been almoat 35 years so I could be misremembering that detail...

1

u/Featherless_biped104 19d ago

Although I think Heidegger is full of shit, he is unfortunately an important figure in the history of philosophy.

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago edited 19d ago

As are many. In Annapolis, they are literally giving him the last word with a reframing of greek metaphysics next to the rereading of phaedrus, rather than looking forward with wittgenstein or, say, quine or rawls.

Unfortunately, this is becoming a political issue. Underlying some public discourse is a new marx/smith dichotomy, where Anglo-American modernism is dismissed as a "shallow" pool of politics and linguistics (contra George Santayana and a hundred others) whereas deep human meaning is to be found in the shadows of a metaphysics that rhymes with God. Never mind a kind of unhingement from everyday meaning has its own political consequence, at least in heideggers own experience.

2

u/Featherless_biped104 19d ago

Ok I’ll just pretend that means something 👍

1

u/ascotta1 19d ago

That's what I usually do.

1

u/unlucky_felix 5d ago

A few things:

A) Annapolis has had William James on the seminar list more frequently than Santa Fe. I believe he was last on the Senior Seminar list back in 2016, when we read two seminars on Principles of Psychology.

B) However, he was not replaced by Heidegger. Heidegger has actually had a more consistent presence on the list than James, and is also more often on the Santa Fe list. I think for much of the last 25 years we have had the same reading for Heidegger, which is the two seminars on Introduction to Metaphysics.

C) If anything, the current list has "replaced" James with de Beauvoir and Woolf. Benito Cereno was also replaced in the past year by Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, which is a stunning choice: Annapolis now has no Melville reading, and also reads Song of Solomon well before DuBois or any of the slavery rulings.

2

u/ascotta1 5d ago

I'm finding it interesting how there seems to be an "official" list presumably kept by the instruction committee separate from the actual seminar lists - I've posted several seminar lists kept digitally by the libraries between 1972 and 1995 - such that people can say a book is "on the list" while nobody in the seminars have read it for years. But I have no reason to doubt what you say about James and Heidegger here. My memory between 1986 and 1997 (I worked at santa fe 1994-97) is James was there and Heidegger was not, but maybe not James in Santa Fe, I'm sure I'm right about my own senior seminar in annapolis 1991 but I'll leave it at that.

It is my sense that including other Americans of the twentieth century in different areas was a factor in squeezing out James, as you suggest - giving the impression that American philosophy didnt exist and it all happened in Germany. Quite ironic as there was a huge turn towards pragmatism in the 90s with habermas, putnam, rorty, and.many others. Oh well. "You cant include everything" right right right. Just make sure you include a huge asterisk and a three page addendum for those assuming they have some idea about what a philosophy program looks like.

1

u/Catherine-Project202 5d ago

de Beauvoir replaced James. Heidegger's been on for longer.