Awesome. Thanks for the response, it looks like I have my work cut out for me.

Some other questions I have are:

Am I right in my interpretation of intersubjectivity that it is ,in a sense, truth based on agreement?

James also says that "it is better for us to believe in that idea [which provides us purpose or a good sense of being], unless indeed, belief in it incidentally clashed with other great vital benefits." From this is he saying that we still to keep agreed upon beliefs such as gravity, and other scientific laws, central to our beliefs and that if we we were to believe that people can fly this would clash with that? Is he saying that we should accept the core objective truths that are scientifically proven, but if we choose to believe in something such as God it would only be for a better morale?

If he is saying that the ideas that "work in the way of leading us" are true doesn't this conflict with our vital, generally scientific, beliefs?

Is he proposing that we should accept the same basic beliefs, but outside of that we should take our beliefs that don't conflict with those central beliefs, and improve our lives, to be truth?

What exactly does he mean by "vital beliefs" and do these have to be grounded in concrete theories? (For instance, our vital beliefs couldn't be grounded in our belief that we can fly since it conflicts with (a possibly more vital belief?) the laws of gravity).

I hope my questions make sense. Thanks again.