This fall, I am co-teaching (with Frank Underkuffler, a colleague in our philosophy department) a course entitled Philosophical Psychology.  We have offered this class twice in the last few years, and we typically focus on issues of interest to this group, including the general problem of disciplinary identity.  In fact, we used Gregg's A New Unified Theory of Psychology as a primary text when we taught the course in Spring 2014.  

This year, we are trying something a little different.  There are times when it is appropriate to take four steps back before taking five forward.  In this spirit, I feel compelled (as if by some mysterious force) to read William James' (1890) Principles of Psychology in an effort to deepen my understanding of what it means to be a psychologist in the first half of the 21st century.  

I've studied large sections of this book in the past, but never the whole thing [from cover(s) to cover(s)].  My colleague and I have decided to adopt Principles of Psychology as our primary text this fall.  Of course, we will not likely assign every chapter (and we will almost certainly "skip around", discussing material in whatever order makes the most pedagogical sense, given the questions we are addressing in the class).

But this summer I plan to read the entire book -- chapter by chapter -- in order.  I will be guided by three preliminary questions (which may themselves evolve over time).  

1) How does James conceive the discipline of psychology?  

• Here I'm inspired by David Leary's (2018) comment (in his recently-published Routledge Guide):
• "...much of the value and potential contemporary relevance of The Principles of Psychology is embedded less in its instructive treatment of this or that topic, and more in the overarching vision conveyed by its various parts, when read and considered in unison....he, after all, saw everything as interrelated" (p. x).  
• Note that I've only read the preface to Leary's book.  My intention is to complete my study of James' text before systematically reviewing the secondary literature.  This is not a dogmatic methodological precept.  I may consult the secondary literature if significant interpretive puzzles arise, but I'd like to my reading of James to be as "fresh" as reasonably possible (i.e., uncontaminated by decades of expert discussion).  

2) William James has been characterized as a "personalist";  e.g., see the NYT article by David Brooks forwarded to this listserv by Gregg a few weeks ago.  If personalism "is a philosophic tendency built on the infinite uniqueness and depth of each person" (Brooks), in what respect(s) does The Principles of Psychology offer a personalistic account of the human organism?  What does it mean to consider James a personalist?  

3) Is there an ethics implicit in Principles of Psychology?   Note that this question may be closely tied to Question #2.  Also note that Questions #2 and #3 will likely need to be modified as my understanding of William James deepens.  [Sometimes, the question to ask at the beginning of a study of this sort is simply: "What questions should I be asking?".  All I can really say at present is that I am especially interested in James' (a) vision of psychology, (b) account of the person, and (c) understanding of the Good Life.]

My outline of Chapter 1 [which addresses Question #1 above] is attached.  I plan to proceed on the following schedule: 

For those interested in accompanying me on this journey, the complete text is available online here: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/index.htm

I am using the following print edition:

I welcome your input on the attached notes (or any other aspect of this project).

~ Steve Q.