Did Armstrong literally steal the phrase "empirical self" and the concept of the empirical self? It might seem harsh to call it stealing, but it seems that "steal" is indeed the correct term, if he did in fact copy them from an earlier writer, and if he intentionally passed them off as his own ideas.
To examine this question, we recall Armstrong's use of the term "empirical self" and compare it to the "empirical self" discussed by the philosopher and psychologist William James who preceeded Armstrong (James died in 1910). Then we will discuss whether Armstrong actually claimed to invent this phrase himself, and whether it is likely that he did.
Armstrong said that, before he became religious, he studied many subjects including philosophy and psychology, so if the phrase "empirical self" was well known in such circles, he could have easily picked it up from others, perhaps from William James directly.
In chapter three of his Autobiography he wrote "I was studying books on psychology, and on advertising psychology." In chapter 14 he goes into more detail:
All these years I had studied diligently. My "major" in this study, of course, was advertising and merchandising. I studied what books were available. I read religiously the trade papers of the profession. I studied psychology. As a "minor" study, I delved into Plato, Epictetus, and other books on philosophy, and continually read Elbert Hubbard (whom I became personally acquainted with) for style in writing. I read human interest articles and other articles on world conditions and on the business of living, in leading magazines. [As elsewhere on this site, underlining has been added by us at A.P.R.]
William James was a famous American philosopher and psychologist who lived from 1842 to 1910. Conservapedia says this about James:
William James is considered the father of modern psychology. His The Principles of Psychology was published by Holt in 1890. ... He is also known as one of the great three classic American pragmatists. [Taken from the article William James found here in December 2011.]
Wikipedia adds that James was a philosopher as well, and that he wrote influential books:
William James (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910) was a pioneering American psychologist and philosopher who was trained as a physician. He wrote influential books on the young science of psychology, educational psychology, psychology of religious experience and mysticism, and on the philosophy of pragmatism. [Taken from here in December 2011.]
If James was the father of modern psychology, all psychologists should have some knowledge of his works, and if he wrote influential books on psychology and philosophy, he would have been widely quoted and discussed. So it seems likely that Herbert Armstrong would have known about him and at least some of his ideas.
Armstrong's Usage
Now, let's review Armstrong's concept of the empirical self.
In the booklet Military Service And War, Armstrong wrote:
In the SIN WAY OF LIFE, love of SELF is balanced by an equal hostility or lack of concern for others—although the "empirical self" usually includes those one feels allied with—such as wife or husband, one's club, team, group, or country. In GOD'S WAY, concern for others is in equal balance to love of self. [For our source for this quote, see here.]
In the article The Way of Life That Causes Success, he said:
I could see why so many marriages break up—or, at least, are unhappy. One confuses "falling in love" with the sex attraction that stimulates DESIRE—toward SELF. And when one does not GET what is wanted from the mate, resentment sets in. The mate is no longer part of one's empirical SELF. Resentment turns to bitterness, and bitterness to HATE. Happiness is a funny thing—or is it? The more you GIVE, the more you HAVE. But the more you try to TAKE, the more miserable you become. [Copied from here.]
In his book, The Missing Dimension in Sex, he said:
So MAN is physical flesh—made from matter—the dust of the ground! Of the three kinds of love expressed by the three Greek words agape, philia and eros, the natural man is capable of expressing only the last two types of love. There is a certain selfish element in the philia love—love for children, parents or family. We may have this love for those of "our club," "our team," "our group." That is actually, to coin a phrase, love of the "empirical self." That often is a factional-type love—one of the "works of the flesh" of Galatians 5:19-21 .... [Copied from here.]
Note that Armstrong says "to coin a phrase" as if he is originating the term. Well get back to that shortly. But now let's compare the descriptions of the empirical self that we just read to the concept of empirical self as proposed by William James.
James' Usage
Here is an excerpt written by Morton Hunt, taken from The Story of Psychology, describing the idea of the empirical self as William James had explained it.
James, however, felt that "the belief in a distinct principle of selfhood" was an integral part of the "common sense of mankind," and found a way to restore to psychology a meaningful—and researchable—concept of self. We are all conscious of our individual identity, we think of certain things as me and mine; these feelings and the acts associated with them can be investigated and thus are the "empirical self." The empirical self has several components: the material self (our body, clothing, possessions, family, home); the social self or selves (who we are and how we behave in relation to the different people in our lives—an anticipation of social psychology, which would not emerge as a specialty for decades); and the spiritual self, a person's inner or subjective being, his entire collection of psychic faculties or dispositions. [We got this quote from here].
So according to James (as explained by Hunt), the "empirical self" includes the things we think of "as me and mine" which includes "possessions, family, home." Psychology and philosophy can get very elaborate, but the basic idea sounds identical to Armstrong's concept of the empirical self. The empirical self in both cases includes everything we think of as belonging to us.
Another writer (John Barresi, Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University) quotes James directly:
The main distinction that James draws at the beginning of his chapter on Self in Principles of Psychology (1890) is between the self as known (or me) and the self as knower (or I). He begins his discussion of the self as known with the claim that: "In its widest sense a man's Self is the sum total of all that he CAN call his, not only his body and his psychic powers [here, "psychic powers" no doubt simply refers to normal mental powers, rather than those powers allegedly held by "psychics"], but his clothes and his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses, and yacht and bank-account" (1690, I, p. 291). [I think this should read 1890, Volume I, p. 291. This quote is from a paper found here ].
Barresi again quotes James directly, but this time we see James using the term "empirical selves."
"I am often confronted by the necessity of standing by one of my empirical selves and relinquishing the rest. ...." (James, 1890, Vol I, p. 309-10)
So we see that James used the same phrase for basically the same concept, which makes it very likely that Armstrong picked up the phrase "empirical self" and the related concept from James either directly or indirectly. I was in the Worldwide Church of God and read all his books, almost all his booklets, and many of his articles, and I always had the impression the empirical self was a concept that Armstrong came up with himself. Did I forget something? (Anyone who can find where he referred to James, or any other source for this, please let me know).
To Coin A Phrase?
Even if Armstrong did at some time credit someone, getting the idea and/or the phrase from others is not what we mean by "to coin a phrase" as Armstrong called it in his book on sex (quoted above). Using the expression "to coin a phrase" implies that he made up the phrase "empirical self" himself. Anyone who doubts this, please read the following definitions for "coin" which I found on the Internet at www.dict.org. I have underlined the key parts of the definitions.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
Coin \Coin\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Coined (koind); p. pr. & vb.
n. Coining.]
1. To make of a definite fineness, and convert into coins, as
a mass of metal; to mint; to manufacture; as, to coin
silver dollars; to coin a medal.
2. To make or fabricate; to invent; to originate; as, to coin
a word.
Some tale, some new pretense, he daily coined,
To soothe his sister and delude her mind. --Dryden.
3. To acquire rapidly, as money; to make.
Tenants cannot coin rent just at quarter day.
--Locke.
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :
coin
n 1: a flat metal piece (usually a disc) used as money
v 1: make up; "coin phrases or words"
2: form by stamping, punching, or printing; "strike coins";
"strike a medal" [syn: mint, coin, strike]
So, how can Armstrong claim he coined the phrase "empirical self" if William James already used the same phrase to describe what appears to be basically the same concept? Did Herbert Armstrong reinvent it from scratch; or did he copy it?
The Meaning of Empirical
Examining the word empirical seems to give us some additional insight (note that empirical is not to be confused with imperial which pertains to an empire). Empirical means "derived from experiment and observation rather than theory" (www.dict.org). Why did Armstrong use this term? In what sense was the empirical self, as he described it, derived from experiment and observation rather than from theory?
The term empirical is used a lot in science, including the "soft sciences" such as psychology. If we reexamine the quote above from Hunt, we see the reason why "empirical" is used by psychologists in the term "empirical self." The reason is because James was taking a scientific approach to the subject of self, and he defined the empirical self as the self that could be understood by empirical methods, i.e. from observation or scientific experiment without the use of scientific theory (or theology for that matter).
Let's look at that quote again:
James, however, felt that "the belief in a distinct principle of selfhood" was an integral part of the "common sense of mankind," and found a way to restore to psychology a meaningful—and researchable [i.e. empirical]—concept of self. We are all conscious of our individual identity, we think of certain things as me and mine; these feelings and the acts associated with them can be investigated and thus [i.e. because they can be investigated by the empirical methods of observation and experiment] are [called] the "empirical self."
If Armstrong came up with the phrase "empirical self" by himself, why did he use the word "empirical"? He was a theologian not a scientist. It is not a theological term but a scientific term.
If we replace the phrase "empirical self" with a more descriptive phrase with the same meaning, such as "the self derived from observation," and substitute that into Armstrong's writings, it does not fit the context. However, the more descriptive phrase, though verbose, still does fit the context in the science of psychology.
Consider the following example of such a substitution.
Armstrong's words before substitution: "The mate is no longer part of one's empirical self. Resentment turns to bitterness, and bitterness to HATE." (From The Way of Life That Causes Success).
Here is the same sentence after substitution: "The mate is no longer part of one's self derived from experiment or observation. Resentment turns to bitterness, and bitterness to HATE."
Does the second sentence make any sense? If not, neither does the first one because they mean the same thing! The first sentence only makes sense to those who mistakenly think empirical means imperial.
A Misunderstanding?
Did Armstrong misunderstand the meaning of "empirical"? As stated above, the word imperial refers to an empire, so if this is what he meant, why didn't he use the term imperial self? Instead he used empirical which has to do with experience, experimentation, or observation, not empires.
The Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course indicates that the Worldwide Church of God misunderstood empirical to mean imperial.
Human nature, or the carnal mind, loves first of all itself. Next it loves that which belongs to it or is in some way connected to it -- persons, concepts, material possessions. All these are a part of a larger "self" -- like a little empire. This "empirical self" even broadens to include the social or occupational group of which the person is a member, ITS state, region or nation, and ultimately the whole human society with the beliefs, customs and ideologies which are a part of it. This is the "self" that human nature loves ahead of God and ahead of any other supposed opposer or "outsider." [Worldwide Church of God Bible Correspondence Course Lesson 24, 1954, 1965 Edition, taken from here.]
Here is a dictionary definition of imperial (from www.dict.org).
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :
imperial
adj 1: relating to or associated with an empire; "imperial
colony"; "the imperial gallon was standardized legally
throughout the British Empire"
2: of or belonging to the British Imperial System of weights and
measures
3: befitting or belonging to an emperor or empress; "imperial
palace"
4: belonging to or befitting a supreme ruler; "golden age of
imperial splendor"; "purple tyrant"; "regal attire"; "treated
with royal acclaim"; "the royal carriage of a stag's head"
[syn: imperial, majestic, purple, regal, royal]
n 1: a small tufted beard worn by Emperor Napoleon III [syn:
imperial, imperial beard]
2: a piece of luggage carried on top of a coach
Now here are some dictionary definitions of empirical (from www.dict.org).
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
Empiric \Em*pir"ic\, Empirical \Em*pir"ic*al\, a.
1. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience;
depending upon the observation of phenomena; versed in
experiments.
[1913 Webster]
In philosophical language, the term empirical means
simply what belongs to or is the product of
experience or observation. --Sir W.
Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]
The village carpenter . . . lays out his work by
empirical rules learnt in his apprenticeship. --H.
Spencer.
[1913 Webster]
2. Depending upon experience or observation alone, without
due regard to science and theory; -- said especially of
medical practice, remedies, etc.; wanting in science and
deep insight; as, empiric skill, remedies.
[1913 Webster]
Empirical formula. (Chem.) See under Formula.
Syn: See Transcendental.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :
empirical
adj 1: derived from experiment and observation rather than
theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory";
"empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical
treatment of a disease about which little is known" [syn:
empirical, empiric] [ant: theoretic, theoretical]
2: relying on medical quackery; "empiric treatment" [syn:
empiric, empirical]
It seems that Armstrong made a mistake which helps us detect his (apparent) plagiarism. If Armstrong had used the correct word (i.e. the word that actually describes what he was trying to say, i.e. the self as a little empire, the imperial self, instead of empirical self) it would be harder to trace his use of the term back to William James. But since he (apparently) copied the term from psychology, presumably thinking empirical was related to empire, an easy mistake to make, we can see that he likely plagiarized the concept of the empirical self from psychology.
Conclusion
In summary, we have the following:
In light of the above, it seems that Armstong probably got the expression from psychology, rather than by coining the phrase himself.
But if so, why didn't he just admit it? Did he want to give the impression it was his original insight? Did he deliberately try to create that impression?
Note: It is possible that Armstrong simply used the term "to coin a phrase" carelessly, without any intent to deceive the reader into thinking he originated the term. However, he was a very good and careful writer. How often did he use words carelessly? Even if he used the term carelessly, we still need to explain why he never credited the source of the expression, though he referred to it often enough that every church member was familiar with it, and, in my judgment (the reader might choose to differ) we were always left with the impression that he came up with it himself.
Even if Armstrong came up with the term independently, shouldn't his followers today, to be fair, attribute the term and the concept to William James rather than to Herbert Armstrong? After all, James did come up with it first. We recommend that the reader print off this article and give it to his minister and see what he says. It might be a quick way to find out the minister is hostile to investigating the truth, as a surprising number of them really are, despite appearances to the contrary. If so, it's a good thing to know, and the sooner the better. Who wants an evil minister?
Note: The term "empirical self" might go back further than William James, but that is beyond the scope of this article.
Note: To return to the previous page, click the back button (left arrow) at the top left of the browser.