In this post, I struggle again to come to terms with John Wild’s wonderful book The Radical Empiricism of William James and its endorsement of the phenomenological interpretation of James. I don’t know if I am going anywhere with this, but that’s what blog writing is for…At least, I hope.
Wild proceeds into the first chapter while annoyingly stating that James was not interested in science in the preface. Wild thinks that James is interested in the patterns of mental phenomena. Despite this denial, Wild is consistent with the next move he makes in the First Chapter. The operative premise is to make James’s claims about consciousness, habit, the lived-body and the overall inquiry into their depth into what he calls a “phenomenological psychology.”