Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssuesXVII-1SymposiaOn Emma Sutton’s William James, M...William James and Scientific Medi...

Symposia
On Emma Sutton’s William James, MD: Philosopher, Psychologist, Physician

William James and Scientific Medicine

A Portrait of the Critic Within
Paul Croce

Full text

1The great achievement of William James, MD is Emma Sutton’s talent for corralling a remarkable range of medical references from throughout the life of the physician who directed his interests toward psychology, philosophy, and religion.

2Before the establishment of scientific professions, many of the scientifically inquisitive in Europe and the Europeanized world became doctors to gain respectability or earn an income while pursuing their passions for natural inquiry. Rather than look back to those contexts, which included James’s own science teachers Louis Agassiz and Edouard Brown-Séquard, Sutton starts with James as a student of professionalizing science and scientific medicine then shows him applying and adapting medical ideas in his evolving thought. She presents James never fully rejecting scientific medicine, while he “requested that [it] deal with the fruits of all types of minds,” with calls for it to attend to materialist, bodily issues in human health alongside subjective and religious aspects of human experience (Sutton 2023: 154).

  • 1 Warner 1977-1978. Supporters of mainstream medicine directed their “nature-trusting” criticism to b (...)

3Sutton displays a remarkable range of medical dimensions throughout James’s life and career. Her findings and interpretations earn her book an important place in the canon of James scholarship. Some insights are similar to previous readings, such as her proposition that the depths of James’s youthful troubles in health and more prompted his readiness to “explicitly challenge the traditional assumption that thinking and feeling may be treated separately,” as she observes, briefly citing the “notabl[e]” example of his “Sentiment of Rationality” (1879: Essays in Philosophy, 32-64; expanded version, 1897: The Will to Believe, 57-89; Sutton 2023: 8, 182). Some of her accounts offer helpful contexts, such as with James during his medical education showing confidence in “heroic” medical measures, including use of blisters for “counter irritation” (Sutton 2023: 15). This example exhibits the persistent emphasis on countering problems causing health issues in professional medicine both before and after the emergence of authoritative laboratory-based scientific medicine, in contrast with the alternative emphasis on the patient’s natural ability to cope, which the mainstream dismissed as “nature-trusting heresies.”1 Sutton also explores James’s interest in utilitarian philosophy with its goal of maximizing happiness in terms of his burden of pain with eye, back, and digestive troubles, which amplified his problems with family disagreements, career choice, and philosophical ambivalence. He read and admired the standards of John Stuart Mill for “being useful to others and to the world” (ibid.: 26). But as ill health blocked his own service, these very goals encouraged his thoughts of suicide, even as they also offered raw material for his philosophies of use in his maturity. Still more of her findings present explicit medical dimensions to familiar ways of understanding James’s talent for presenting personal and even therapeutic ways of expressing theoretical insights, such as with his essay “Is Life Worth Living?” (1897/1979), which not only emerged from his own discouragement but also inspired accolades from those grateful for his words of support through mental and physical pain (Sutton 2023: 173-4).

  • 2 In place of using James’s own word, “meliorism,” Sutton’s “melioration” points to his thinking with (...)

4In reminding that “the experience of pain loomed large in James’s reasoning,” from his youthful ill health to his mature use of medical metaphors about “healthy-minded” and the “sick soul” religious types in The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902/1985), Sutton offers interpretive innovation. As she proposes, “within his worldview, illness and pain were evil incarnate” (Sutton 2023: 168). This provides a medical window into his moral philosophy, in contrast with Christian belief that “evil is simply an absence of good,” with Augustine of Hippo also using “the example of wounds and healing to illustrate his argument” (ibid.: 22). James veered closer to the ancient Greeks with their view that evil is real but only transient, and as part of fate, the arrival of evil was just “bad luck” (ibid.: 20). James amplified this view of the reality of evil, adding an eagerness to combat it, just as he sought to overcome his health problems. In his youth, he declared “hate evil & defy it,” a sentiment that persisted into his mature thinking. Sutton also interprets his youthful choice for free will in both medical and moral terms with this way of thinking opening the “possibility that the future may hold less evil than the present” (ibid.: 38), and his “bold doctrine of melioration,” expressing his hope to “change the world into a more ideal form” (ibid.: 133).2

5The flip side of Sutton’s facility with medical references is some exaggeration. For example, she reports helpful stories about James’s heart condition that postponed delivery of his Gifford Lectures that would become The Varieties of Religious Experience, and his references to the benefits that melancholics gained from experiencing the “divided self” and conversion. She concludes by contending that, to James, “religion is something that makes an individual’s life healthier” (Sutton 2023: 109, 115, 123). Her proposition that religion provides believers with “moral medication” makes sense, even as this emphasis does not displace the many other dimensions of religion (ibid.: 123).

6Sutton is a fine practitioner of intellectual history. Her abundant and sound explanations of books, theories, and influential thinkers follows a maxim of this field with close readings of figures James studied. Her pantheon includes many who have received little attention, such as James Hinton (1866) whose Mystery of Pain encouraged James’s view that struggle against pain would spur “moral energy” (Sutton 2023: 42); William Carpenter (2009) whose Mental Physiology shaped James’s views of habit (Sutton 2023: 57); Moriz Benedikt whose neurology influenced James on believed assumptions and temperamental traits (ibid.: 73); Ambrose Liébeault who directed James’s attention to the healing potential in altered states of consciousness (ibid.: 82); Wincenty Lutoslawski who impressed James about “deeper levels of will-power than are habitually used” (ibid.: 131); Max Nordau whose warnings about uncivilized “degeneration” prompted James’s reaction with celebration of the useful and even creative qualities of non-normal human traits from invalidism to eccentricity (ibid.: 145); and Clifford Beers who inspired James to become a “crucial” advocate for mental health reform (ibid.: 163). In highlighting medical dimensions in James’s life and work, she also covers some of his better-known influences including Marcus Aurelius, Herbert Spencer, Pierre Janet, George Beard, Edwin Starbuck, Frederic Myers, and Gustav Fechner.

7For all her research into major influences on James, Sutton is most committed to careful consideration of the “micro-texts” of his private writings to portray his personal experiences while circulating with influential theorists and producing well-known presentations and major publications. The different texts work together in her hands with James’s “day-to-day” contexts complementing his “year-by-year” works, and with “all his writings as evidence of the philosopher in action” (ibid.: 7-8). This method lends the book a spirit of a social history, with its emphasis on everyday life. To Sutton, the personal is the philosophical. She explains James’s theories from the bottom up with experiences influencing ideas rather than from the top down about behavior shaped by intellectual life. Attention both to James’s theories of experience and to the “micro-contexts of everyday life” enable portrayal of James philosophizing as “impassioned responses to […] ordinary life” (ibid.: 6), a worthy update to his reputation as an introspective psychologist.

  • 3 On the empirical spirituality of Henry James, Senior, also known as the elder Henry James to distin (...)

8For all Sutton’s careful attention to James’s development and her innovations in reporting on his medical thinking dispensed throughout his career, her view of James’s own medical commitments veers toward support of scientific medicine albeit with his calls for some reform of the “medical establishment” (ibid.: 158). She portrays James in young adulthood, enrolled in science classes and embracing “the natural laws laid down by science” (ibid.: 81). But Sutton adds that James only “appeared to go along with” (ibid.) the views of Thomas Huxley, the avid advocate for the professionalization of science away from religious influence, whose book, Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy (1864), James reviewed in 1865 (1865/1987: 197-205). Perhaps Sutton’s ambivalence is due to the mix of unorthodox ideas that James displays in the review. She quotes parts that seem to support scientific materialism, with his reference to “Nature a closed sack […] without any partial inlets to the Supernatural,” but she leaves out James’s impatience with those views for exhibiting “faith” in scientific theories, despite his educational immersion in science (Sutton 2023: 81; James 1865/1987: 197). Writing a review of a major book in his current field of study would be “like using its perfect respectability as a shield” for his nonmainstream views, as he said in a message to Charles Eliot Norton, the editor of the journal where he published (James 1864b/1995: 94). She does quote some of those divergent views, including his indication that he felt “driven to look for final causes on some deeper plane underlying the whole of Nature,” which she interprets as support for science because nature displays no “miraculous interventions that supersede the order of natural processes” even as she adds that he did not “see such a state of affairs as inherently atheistic” (Sutton 2023: 81). On these topics, mainstream science and orthodox Christianity were not the only options available to James or in his contexts. The combination of embrace of natural facts with hope for “a larger, purer view of the Supernatural” points to James’s father, the elder Henry James, who espoused an empirical spirituality along these lines (James 1865/1987: 202).3 And more to the point of Sutton’s book, so too did a range of sectarian healthcare practitioners. Their practices were unorthodox in science and in religion.

  • 4 On the “Varieties of Sectarian Medicine,” see Croce (2018: 100-12).

9Unorthodox sectarian healers thrived before the intellectual and social triumph of mainstream scientific medicine. Laboratory-based professional scientific medicine came to dominate health care by the early twentieth century, with major strides starting in the 1870s when physiological laboratory researchers first discovered bacterial sources of infection, with this research soon gaining massive government and philanthropic support. This approach to healthcare, based on assumptions of physical causes of health conditions, which is now the assumed norm, was widely contested in the nineteenth century. The range of competing approaches, called “sects” because of their diversity and the commitment of their adherents, were open to the religious ideas expressed in the James family. A major appeal was the sectarian use of natural substances instead of the chemical remedies of the mainstream, which brought difficult side effects. Those practitioners outside the medical mainstream perceived that human health could be supported with natural remedies, bringing few side effects because these substances engaged “causes on some deeper plane,” in James’s words. While mainstream doctors ridiculed their effective inaction through application of useless remedies or through appeal to patients’ eager beliefs in their benefits, sectarians argued that their remedies not only worked but also avoided the harsh chemicals with major side effects of the scientific mainstream (Sutton 2023: 81). In fact, the sectarian interest in the energy of natural substances is related to James’s enthusiasm about the importance of energy in physical and mental life, as Sutton recognizes (ibid.: 126).4

  • 5 On James’s embrace of the “simultaneous coexistence of material and immaterial” parts of life, see (...)

10Sectarians embraced a nondualist philosophy with non-material parts of life (emotions, mind, spirit) embedded within natural facts, not separate from those facts, which was the view of materialist scientists and also of traditional religious believers.5 Despite their reputation for antagonism, mainstream science and mainstream religion agreed on a sharp contrast between physical worlds and nonmaterial worlds. By contrast, sectarians mingled these worlds, with advocates of mind cure maintaining a variation on this theme. Like other sectarians, they objected to scientific reduction of life to material causation, but unlike other sectarians, mind curists did not trust natural facts. Even in their “array of different groups,” as Sutton recognizes, they believed in the mind’s power over physical facts (Sutton 2023: 89). Reversing the thinking of material determinists, they were immaterial determinists. Scientific medicine was challenged by mind cure, but even more by other sectarian approaches that likewise interpreted natural facts but with attention to factors beyond their material substance. In particular, hydropathy and homeopathy emphasized, respectively, the curative powers of water and of minimum doses. In fact, the now-robust American Medical Association was founded 1847 in organizational defense against the appeal of sectarians with the American Institute of Homeopathy founded in 1844.

  • 6 Sutton makes reference to hydropathy a few times, with mention of James’s visit to the Teplitz wate (...)

11In addition to James’s visits to mind-cure practitioners, as Sutton thoroughly reports, he also visited other sectarians for his own health issues. His first use of hydropathy was with a visit to a water cure in 1867; and James took homeopathic remedies in 1869 and likely much earlier since the James family included some of the first Americans to use this sectarian healing practice a generation earlier.6

12Sutton’s focus on one dimension of sectarians, mind cure, with hardly any use of the term “sectarian,” keeps her study focused on the most nonmaterial dimension of alternatives to scientific medicine. Her points are well taken about James’s personal experiences with mind cure, his references to this practice in The Varieties, and its influence on his theorizing. His views of health and religion, along with other parts of his philosophy, do indeed exhibit a turn away from focus on “an objectively measurable set of criteria” and toward the importance of “subjective state[s] of feeling” (Sutton 2023: 171). These views are “redolent of the mind-curists’ […] approach to life,” even as other parts of his experiences and theorizing reveal the influence of the nondualism in a range of sectarian thinking.

13Sectarian healing, now called alternative medicine or complementary medicine for those more interested in building bridges with mainstream medicine, has offered approaches to health and illness distinct from those of the mainstream in two main ways. First, sectarians are thoroughly patient-centered, meaning that they propose that the patient is the one most responsible for health and healing, with the practitioner offering support to that central function. This is in contrast with the mainstream focus on the doctor taking responsibility for healing, while gaining support from institutions and physiological tests, but with the patient in a passive receiving role. Sectarian patient-centeredness includes focus on the whole person, hence the term “holism” in contrast with mainstream attention to mental and physical parts, expressed socially with specializations. Second, sectarians emphasize the healing strength of each person, based on what the homeopaths call the vital force, which they regard as the holistic source of good health despite potential challenges all around. The sectarian’s first job is to support that strength, which is why they emphasize prevention to enable continued management of good health. Instead, mainstream doctors emphasize the agency of outside forces attacking the person who then needs the doctor to counter those forces with surgery or pharmaceuticals. In fact, a traditional name for mainstream medicine is allopathy, meaning treatment through prescription of contrasting remedies to combat illnesses. The mainstream is particularly effective in diagnostics, especially with use of physiological science, and also by addressing the most acute of invading problems; these are quite distinct from sectarians claim for effectiveness in prevention and with treatment of chronic conditions.

  • 7 Sutton’s brief references (2023: 180, n.4) to Croce (2018, ch. 2); and to “James and Medicine: Reck (...)

14Sutton cites my own coverage of these topics.7 Since lay healing, as she describes mind cure, was part of unorthodox medicine, these sectarian ways of thinking would support many of the arguments in her book, most notably as source and further endorsement of James’s commitment to lived experience in his psychology, philosophy, and religious studies. I describe this orientation in James as his commitment to “experiential empiricism,” with knowledge emerging in lived experiences, by contrast with the “experimental empiricism” of mainstream science, with privileging of knowledge emerging in controlled setting on the model of the laboratory. James supported both, in the spirit of pragmatism, each for particular purposes, and each with shortcomings, namely with lived experiences offering comparatively less clarity and with experimental settings offering comparatively less lived authenticity. Sutton endorses these ideas, describing James’s insistence that “experience does largely verify” the validity of “mental healing” (as he also says of other sectarian practices), and citing James even identifying views of mainstream doctors as “the claims of the sectarian scientist” (Sutton 2023: 104). As she recognizes, James presents sectarian healing and scientific medicine on equal terms. This points to another aspect of sectarian healing with influence on his philosophy, namely, his pluralism. On the same quoted page of The Varieties, James maintains that with “the universe […] a many-sided affair, […] why in the name of common sense need we assume that only one such system of ideas can be true?” (James 1902/1985: 104). James elaborated on these ideas seven years later in A Pluralistic Universe (1909/1977). In keeping with Sutton’s theme, pluralism shows another way that James applied his lived experiences with medicine outside the scientific mainstream to his developing theories.

15As Sutton points out, James did not support sectarian healing, including mind cure, to the exclusion of mainstream science and scientific medicine. In fact, he held out hope to prevent blocking inquiry brought by professional shunning and by laws to prohibit sectarian practice and even make it illegal. Instead, with greater recognition of sectarian facts, “patent and startling,” as she quotes James saying, he pictured a future science with unorthodox practices and experiential results more thoroughly examined (Sutton 2023: 159). In his commitment to inquiry, James did remain scientific. When preparing the review of Huxley, he suggested that this type of inquiry, with evaluation of what materialist scientists dismiss as “sentiments,” would be the basis for a “Program of the Future of Science” (James 1864a/1995: 93-4). This thinking is in line with Sutton’s quotation from James explaining his criticism of the “swaggering dogmatism of […] medical materialists,” with a desire to “show them how many empirical facts they had overlooked” (Sutton 2023: 37).

16In the spirit of pluralism, some readers may think it poor form for a reviewer to suggest to an author more material not covered in what is already a wonderful contribution. A book has two covers for good reason, to maintain focus on the author’s choice of topics. And yet, James’s use of a wide range of sectarian healing is so evidently relevant to Sutton’s own themes that it seems remiss to leave them unmentioned. To use some American baseball slang, they offer her a “fat pitch”! But perhaps her coverage of James on medicine with attention to mind cure without coverage of other sectarians is in keeping with her tacit theme about challenging scientific medicine while remaining within its assumptions. The mind-cure sectarians with their “nonphysical therapies” are so thoroughly anti-materialist that in a backhanded way they support materialist assumptions (ibid.: 159). Mind cure, with assumptions about the immaterial basis of the world, is in stark contrast to its opposite, the materialism of mainstream medicine with assumptions about the material basis of the world. Between the two, body-mind dualism remains intact. Other sectarians embrace nondualism, wading into the embeddedness and even identity of material and immaterial parts of the world. Coverage of that thinking might call for a wholly different book, while still remaining in line with Sutton’s coverage of James’s personal experiences while showing their influences on his lived philosophy. William James, MD, Volume 2?

  • 8 Consider these recent works: an exploration of James’s scientific immersion in phenomena beyond the (...)

17Rather than feel miffed at Sutton’s oversight of sectarians or of my own writings on their role in James’s life and thought, I actually delight in Sutton’s innovations and welcome future scholars who would make use of both my own propositions about James’s embrace of spiritual and metaphysical views of immaterial parts of life embedded in the material world and her throughline of abundant medical insights and commitments throughout his works. These and other recent works offer potential for still more interpretations about James and ways to use his insights to plumb theoretical depths in James scholarship, connect to other philosophies and other fields, and reach out to a public hungry for the kind of clarity that this scholarly work can produce to address our many cultural dilemmas, many of which are rooted in tangled understandings of our emotions, mind, and spirit in relation to our bodies and the material world.8

Top of page

Bibliography

Carpenter William, (2009), Principles of Mental Physiology: With their Applications to the Training and Discipline of the Mind, and the Study of its Morbid Conditions, Cambridge Library (“History of Medicine”).

Croce Paul Jerome, (1995), Science and Religion in the Era of William James, vol. 1, Eclipse of Certainty, 1820-1880, Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.

Croce Paul Jerome, (2018), Young William James Thinking, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Croce Paul Jerome, (2024), “James and Medicine: Reckoning with Experience,” in Alexander Mugar Klein (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of William James, New York, Oxford University Press, 134-54.

Dianda Alexis, (2023), The Varieties of Experience: William James after the Linguistic Turn, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Hinton James, (1866), Mystery of Pain: A Book for the Sorrowful, London, Smith, Elder & Co.

Huxley Thomas, (1864), Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy, London, J. Churchill & Sons.

James William, (1864a/1995), “William James to Charles Eliot Norton, November 14, 1864,” in The Correspondence of William James, vol. 4, William and Henry 1856-1877, ed. by Ignas K. Skrupskelis & Elizabeth M. Berkeley, Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press.

James William, (1864b/1995), “William James to Charles Eliot Norton, November 17, 1864,” in The Correspondence of William James, vol. 4, William and Henry 1856-1877, ed. by Ignas K. Skrupskelis & Elizabeth M. Berkeley, Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press.

James William, (1865/1987), “Review of Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy,” in The Works of William James, ed. by Frederick Burkhardt & Fredson Bowers, intro. by Ignas K. Skrupskelis, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

James William, (1879/1978), Essays in Philosophy, in The Works of William James, vol. 5, ed. by Frederick Burkhardt, Fredson Bowers & Ignas K. Skrupskelis, intro. by John J. McDermott, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

James William, (1897/1979), The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, in The Works of William James, vol. 6, ed. by Frederick Burkhardt, Fredson Bowers & Ignas K. Skrupskelis, intro. by Edward H. Madden, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

James William, (1902/1985), The Varieties of Religious Experience, in The Works of William James, vol. 15, ed. by Frederick Burkhardt, Fredson Bowers & Ignas K. Skrupskelis, intro. by John E. Smith, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

James William, (1907/1975), Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, in The Works of William James, vol. 1, ed. by Fredson Bowers & Ignas K. Skrupskelis, intro. by H. S. Thayer, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

James William, (1909/1977), A Pluralistic Universe, in The Works of William James, vol. 4, ed. by Fredson Bowers & Ignas K. Skrupskelis, intro. by Richard J. Bernstein, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Klein Alexander Mugar (ed.), (2018), The Oxford Handbook of William James, New York, Oxford University Press.

Knapp Krister Dylan, (2017), William James: Psychical Research and the Challenge of Modernity, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press.

Marchetti Sarin (ed.), (2022), The Jamesian Mind, New York, Routledge.

Stagoll Clifford S., (2023), Transforming One’s Self: The Therapeutic Ethical Pragmatism of William James, Albany, State University of New York Press.

Sutton Emma, (2023), William James, MD: Philosopher, Psychologist, Physician, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Viney Wayne, (2022), William James’s Pluralism: An Antidote for Contemporary Extremism and Absolutism, New York, Routledge.

Warner John Harley, (1977-1978), “‘The Nature-Trusting Heresy’: American Physicians and the Concept of the Healing Power of Nature in the 1850s and 1860s,” Perspectives in American History, 11, 291-324.

Top of page

Notes

1 Warner 1977-1978. Supporters of mainstream medicine directed their “nature-trusting” criticism to both alternative practitioners (called “sectarian” at the time) and to mainstream physicians with focus on clinical practice. Their point was that patents need the innovations that science provides while clinicians and sectarians only watch with ineffective action while nature takes its course; hence the related phrase “expectant medicine.” See Croce (2018: 99-102).

2 In place of using James’s own word, “meliorism,” Sutton’s “melioration” points to his thinking with this philosophy offering no expectation for instant transformation. Instead, he treats ideals as “live possibilities, […] neither inevitable nor impossible, [but…] more of a probability,” especially with the “energies” that she shows to be central to James’s philosophy and lived experiences (James 1907/1975: 137; Sutton 2023: 126-34). Sutton indirectly engages with meliorism in referring to one of James’s medical textbooks “construct[ing] a melioristic narrative” (Sutton 2023: 62) and to his enthusiasm for pragmatist colleague Giovanni Papini’s “bold doctrine of melioration” (ibid.: 133).

3 On the empirical spirituality of Henry James, Senior, also known as the elder Henry James to distinguish him from his son, the novelist Henry James (Junior), see “Science and the Spirit According to the Elder Henry James” (Croce 1995: 49-66).

4 On the “Varieties of Sectarian Medicine,” see Croce (2018: 100-12).

5 On James’s embrace of the “simultaneous coexistence of material and immaterial” parts of life, see Croce (2018: 36-7).

6 Sutton makes reference to hydropathy a few times, with mention of James’s visit to the Teplitz water cure near Dresden (Sutton 2023: 15); reference to one of Pierre Janet’s patients using water cure (ibid.: 93); and with defense of “hydropathists” among other sectarians James defended against legal sanction (ibid.: 157). And she mentions homeopathy three times, first with mention of the James family doctor James John Garth Wilkinson, who was both an MD and a homeopath, as an “associate of James’s father” (ibid.: 3); second, with reference to James’s letter to Wilkinson in which he agrees with Wilkinson’s critique of the “incredible shallowness” of materialist science, but also defends insights that can come with studying “this world […as] also a machine” (and as in his review of Huxley, James considers that “the world’s body […has] all the mechanism for the sake of a spiritual end”) (ibid.: 87-8); and third, quoting James saying that “as a medical student, […] ‘we had to sneer at homeopathy by word of command’” (ibid.: 159).

7 Sutton’s brief references (2023: 180, n.4) to Croce (2018, ch. 2); and to “James and Medicine: Reckoning with Experience,” (Croce 2024; with online portions available in 2018, https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34712?login=false), simply call these works accounts of “James’s attitude toward unorthodox medicine” without further elaboration.

8 Consider these recent works: an exploration of James’s scientific immersion in phenomena beyond the mainstream scientific purview (Knapp 2017); his precursive response to polarization (Viney 2022); his post-cursive response to literary theory (Dianda 2023); further mingling of lived experience with moral purpose (Stagoll 2023); and the essays in Marchetti 2022, and in Klein 2018.

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Paul Croce, “William James and Scientific Medicine”European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy [Online], XVII-1 | 2025, Online since 24 April 2025, connection on 18 June 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/4877; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/13t9q

Top of page

About the author

Paul Croce

Stetson University
pcroce[at]stetson.edu

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search