On Being Practical: Pragmatism
A number of people have argued that we have to practical or realistic when discussing immigration. This is a pragmatist argument. In common language you will hear people say “we need to be pragmatic.” This statement is pulled out to argue that we need to abandon our principles, because principles are impractical. The related argument is when the press calls someone an ideologue. Note however when the press agrees with a person’s position, then they will call them principled.
I admit that when I first started reading Rand I did not understand her opposition to pragmatism. To me pragmatism meant being practical and being practical did not mean abandoning principles or facts. However, the philosophy of pragmatism means exactly that. In philosophical pragmatism everything is judged on its “practical consequences”, however the term practical consequence is never defined and the proponents of pragmatism mean to throw out all principles in making this judgment. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pra... So logic is not a criteria of what is practical, nor is the law of identity (A is A), or the laws of physics. What is interesting is that most of us, particularly those with a scientific background, immediately see the absurdity of this position when it is presented in a scientific/engineering setting. This video is a funny take that illustrates pragmatism in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP....
This is Rand’s explanation of pragmatism “[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better.” Ayn Rand Lexicon For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 34.
The anti-immigration arguments herein are based at least in part on the philosophy of pragmatism and the result is the idea that we should push for more freedom infringing policies like the TSA, background checks, a 100 mile zone from the border in which the Bill of Rights does not apply, building a wall, a national ID card, or even an NSA that spies on everyone.
I admit that when I first started reading Rand I did not understand her opposition to pragmatism. To me pragmatism meant being practical and being practical did not mean abandoning principles or facts. However, the philosophy of pragmatism means exactly that. In philosophical pragmatism everything is judged on its “practical consequences”, however the term practical consequence is never defined and the proponents of pragmatism mean to throw out all principles in making this judgment. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pra... So logic is not a criteria of what is practical, nor is the law of identity (A is A), or the laws of physics. What is interesting is that most of us, particularly those with a scientific background, immediately see the absurdity of this position when it is presented in a scientific/engineering setting. This video is a funny take that illustrates pragmatism in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP....
This is Rand’s explanation of pragmatism “[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better.” Ayn Rand Lexicon For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 34.
The anti-immigration arguments herein are based at least in part on the philosophy of pragmatism and the result is the idea that we should push for more freedom infringing policies like the TSA, background checks, a 100 mile zone from the border in which the Bill of Rights does not apply, building a wall, a national ID card, or even an NSA that spies on everyone.
The pragmatist also fails to recognize the interplay of principles. He only looks at the one defining issue related to a specific principle and can't see that all of the founding or basic principles require each other in order to provide a whole.
Did this concept exist before the Declaration of Independence? As Americans, we are taught that we have these rights, and they are inherent to being human, but do we mean they SHOULD BE, rather than they ARE inherent? What is the reality?
Let's start with the basics: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. If these are inherent human rights, what about slaves? Prisoners? Clearly no liberty there. Are they no longer human?
What about the "right to bear arms"? This is clearly not an inherent human right. Humans in many nations do not have this right. Those in the U.S. supposedly have the right, but only because it was granted by the founding fathers (government).
So ... are some rights inherent, and some government-granted? Even though "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" are listed in the DOI as "Inalienable", does that listing in a government document imply that we only have these rights because the government allows it?
This line of thought has me pretty depressed. I'm hoping someone out there can put me straight.
NO SNARK OR ANTAGONISM INTENDED.
Thanks
VG
But, when are you going to understand that those rights must be compromised - 'a little' - in the name of protection? ;)
Natural rights, inalienable rights, ARE the idea based on the nature of man these rights exist for EVERYONE. Most of the founders understood that
What should be pointed out, however, is that it is error to believe that capitalism can be forced. Any government or leader who makes the mistake of believing such at that point ceases to be a capitalist and becomes - at least temporarily - a statist. Capitalists trust the market to correct itself - they do not attempt to force the market to correct!
That being said, I agree with your succinct and spot-on analysis of Pragmatism.
People play games because they enjoy the stimulus and interaction with other people. Chess for instance, variation comes from the opponent. Without the opponent their is neither challenge or a game. Computer chess, boring compared to playing a human opponent.
Do you think coherent thought is not required to beat a skilled opponent in chess?
It's organic its okay, like turpentine, gasoline and plastic?
Words have meaning and context. You are in a philosophical discussion. Ignoring the philosophical meaning of terms will result in nonsense and the wool being pulled over your eyes.
Please bear with the following analogy. When Jesus sent his apostles to preach what Christians call "the gospel", if the citizenry outright rejected the message, then Jesus instructed them to shake the dust off their feet as a symbol that they were moving on to other places to spread the message. At this point, as much as it pains me, that time has come for America. It is time to start over from scratch.
Add in the sexist or racist or other bigot vote the eventual 'winner' does not have much to crow about though I don't suppose they care as much as if the final counts were honest.
Really isn't a hard decision. Think of having to explain to your kids why(our parents) lost 250,000 fighting it over there only to vote it into power here.
The rest is semantics in a dishonest system. Perpetuating that is the real evil.
Pay particular attention to the first sentence of the second para.
Pragmatism as a political perspective grew out of the pragmatist idea of keeping close to facts and seeing what resulted from certain actions. This became devalued to the notion of 'the art of the possible'.
Pragmatism as political expediency is seen as shrewd manipulation and shifting of ground. For some this is opposed to principled politics, and for other is is opposed to a dogmatic approach.
Another wäy of saying this is Anything said or dsone to advance the party is right ... at the moment it is said or done.
It is practical for Perception Manager and some areas refer to this specifically as a way of justifying what iis commonly referred to as spin'. it is useful to ACLU types, and Secular Progressives certainly and of course most any politician who tries to be a multi faceted mirror reflecting to each potential voter the image the voter wishes to see or hear.One need not go only to the http://left.to find examples of this. Most any debate or speech will do.
But to the average voter who has a cerrtain moral outlook on life it would be hard to find a term with less value and certainly no practical application.
War Criminals invoked what is called the Nuremberg Defense as the pragmatic course of action at the moment. The Judges to a more practical approach and hung them.
Now they Kant bother us anymore.
Modern day examples of the pragmatic approach? Two Wrongs Make A Right. Voting for the lesser of two evils is Good. They may be praqgmatic when faced with no other recognizable choice. But they aren't practical when trying to explain to Johnny why the college fund went to feed the family.
One could wander through the halls of that particular philosophy for days, months, years.
But it isn't a practical way to spend one time.
I would have to come down on the side of Heinlein and say ís it practical and is it moral?
Try Google just to keep it short look for Pierce.
As for definitions? One would need an entire dictionary for the project. So...my take on your basic question and it took me a while to dig back lo these many decades and then find a review the material - unused since it appeared on a test at university. I also recall for some reason each area of philosophy rated two questions and served for the most part only to elicit my interests the more practical schools of thought.Pragmatically speaking.
You then proceed to decry pragmatism and dip practicality in the dung by association.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that there is an objective right and wrong and that government is vastly overreaching it's rightful bounds and still understand that as a practical matter modifying the U.S. government to follow objective principles is not likely to happen in a reasonable time frame and as a practical matter (that word again) we have to aim for something less in the near term.
That does not mean that we think it is the goal, we understand the goal, but there are 300 million people in the country the majority of whom thing the government should pay for their stuff. Short of force -- which we have eschewed -- they are not going to change soon.
So, as a practical matter, you cannot ignore immigration issues because you know the government should not run a welfare state to attract moochers. It shouldn't but it does. A=A acknowledging reality is important, even if it isn't what you want it to be.
A good example of this is Lamarkism: A perfectly reasonable theory, but it does not 'work'. Quite reliably, it does not work. Pragmatism suggest that one 'reexamine one's premise' when this happens.
Jan
NO more illegal aliens PERIOD.. The argument for the Right to Travel, to me, is absurd. You cannot have private property, and that is exactly what any nations border is, without the ability to restrict who comes and goes. Where those people (the illegals) ignore our law, our private property rights, we build walls, we restrict their entry forcibly if we have to.
My sister is a prime example why this should be. Rand herself could magically reappear to try to convince me otherwise and I would laugh in her face.
Two days ago my sister cried to me on the phone, she lost 40 pounds, she can't walk without pain and standing is becoming more of an issue, she now needs a cane..She's 44, married with 2 kids. She was driving home form the store when an illegal ran a red light crushing her in her car. The Hispanic police officers let the illegal go without so much as a ticket while my sister was still being cut out of her car. While my sister spent 3 months in the hospital said illegal fled the country unpunished. My sister holding the medical bills.
By far my sister is the worst of the story's I can tell...but I have several more, even a few to me directly.
Pragmatism - fix the problem (stop illegal entry, make it impossible to live here if you're not a legal citizen, and ensure those here on VISA return home when their VISA's expire), defend our border, and retain our culture. Once those things are done I'm all for ideology.
Load more comments...