Skip to content

William James and John Dewey on Consciousness

Felix Morrow

Journal of Humanistic Psychology 1984 DOI: 10.1177/0022167884241005 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Conference paper Peer reviewed
Citations 7
Key points Argues that the academic world has ignored or suppressed William James's writings on psychical research and cosmic consciousness, and that John Dewey's writings urging scientific study of the Alexander Technique met a similar fate. In both cases, the author contends, literary executors found views central to each philosopher's worldview unpalatable and omitted them from reprinted collections.

Abstract

This article was read at an invitational conference convened by the Institute for Noetic Sciences, June, 1982, to discuss ways of introducing into the educational system our new knowledge of the scope of consciousness. I illustrated the difficulties by the way in which the academic world has ignored or suppressed William James' writings on psychical research and the concept of cosmic consciousness. A similar process has befallen John Dewey's writings on F. Matthias Alexander, which have vainly urged systematic scientific study of the Alexander Technique and its incorporation into the educational system. In James' case, the successor to his chair at Harvard, Ralph Barton Perry, given the task of reprinting James' papers, failed to include most of the writings on psychical research and failed to gather them in one place. Fifty years after James' death, this important omission was rectified by Gardner Murphy and William 0. Ballou, in William James on Psychical Research. In Dewey's case, likewise, his literary executors failed to reprint his writings and letters on the Alexander Technique. In each of these cases, a great philosopher thought his views central to his Weltanschaung but his literary executors found those views unpalatable enough to ignore them.