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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Merrian Websters 10th Collegiate
practical - manifested in practice or action not theoretical nor ideal. Useful. disposed to action as opposed to abstraction.
Pragmatic- practical as opposed to idealistic
Example - A Truth or fact pre-eminantly tested by the practical consequences of belief.
Websters 1966
Practical - performance as opposed to theory, as a noun means 'capable of being useful'
Pragmatic - concerned with practical consequences
and some more in each volume that covered various aspects or the use in the various parts of speech forms. Pragmatic was also defined as opinionated and officious
In Linguistics Pragmatics is the study of the meaning of sentences as related to the environment in which they occur
I read that over and concluded...
(which may serve to explain or confuse the issue especially if used in a conversation with post PC practitioners versus those who are use the English language as a useful tool.)
Example - "You know what I meant."
Often used by those who have no practical ability in English or other languages, therefore causing confusion, error, eventually a degeneration of the usefulness of the language rather than correcting the deviation.
Practical Examples: Clip instead of magazine which are two entirely different items. Decimate meaning to kill or execute one tenth of any group.
Begs the question. Is it my job to learn all the improperly defined definitions or just those that are correct? How much credence should be placed in the speech or writing of anyone who consistently is incorrect in speech or useful applications of any sort? Are the actions or speech of such a person to be considered a sign of a low intellectual ability, a failure in education, or perhaps an intentional misuse designed to further a negative consequence.
Which brings us to politicians.
In a practical and a pragmatic sense how do you know a politician is lying.
His or her lips are moving.
The theory or idea is made practical through experience. The Law of Intended Consequences.
Use a pre PC dictionary and learn the difference between pre judice and post judice. Never believe a politician - can't go wrong.
and for those going south of the border tonto means fool. How the did Hollywood get away with that one?
In playing Chess a skilled human combines the cold logic of the mathematics of the game with an assessment of the psychology of his opponent at that point in the game and risks the occasional short term gambit to work toward a stronger position later on.
Checkers Player: "Fool, I have captured your Queen".
Chess Master: "Mate in Five".
Twisted, isn't it?
I suppose that pragmatism carries the connotation of referring to a philosophy, so perhaps a different word should be used in applications where it is simply a temporary action. If I think of one, I'll reply to my reply.
I think that you are underestimating the damage of pragmatism. As I explained above it is used in common language to suggest that the person is not practical because they have principles. Being aware of the rhetorical slight of hand is very important and the people who use it are usually intellectually dishonest.
Definition, from Dictionary.com: "pramatic 1. of or relating to a practical point of view or practical considerations."
One can advocate a pragmatic solution to a very particular problem without abandoning one's philosophy of Objectivism. For example, if I could vote, I would check Rand Paul for President, because he advocates many Objectivist positions, like his support of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, though, Dr. Paul has other points of view that are not consistent with Objectivism. However, since he is the ONLY candidate with anti-government views, I would vote for him as the "lesser evil". You might say, "Why cast a vote at all?" And my reply would be that by not casting a vote, the Democratic candidate would have one less vote AGAINST her ( or him ).
I intend to be free and ask only that I be free, I will work for my happiness offering value for value, I will affirm and honor my individual sovereignty and the rights which protect mine and all other citizens. My rights are preserved and protected in the Constitution under the principles of the Declaration of Independence and I swear by my life and sacred honor to obey the rule of law and uphold the Constitution of the USA. I agree to my immediate deportation if I violate my oath.
Pragmatism is giving a band aid to a hemophiliac.
The issues raised by the anti-free travel people are terrorism and paying welfare to the newcomers.
The matter of foreign attackers would most likely disappear (as Ron Paul well explains in his 2015 book “Plowshares”) if the U.S. did not interfere in other nations internal politics. Something George Washington addressed in his farewell speech as president.
The entitlements would not exist under a Libertarian form of government, and therefore a nonissue.
Pragmatism is a philosophical position that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily. This loose standard leads to ends justifies the means and fallacies too numerous to list. It also leaves open as to who is the judge of whether it works satisfactorily. The answer, of course, would be those in power. As to those in power, whether or not something works satisfactorily is dependent upon whether it furthers their remaining in power or undermines them. Well explained in the book “The Dictator’s Handbook.”
I short, pragmatism has no real principles by which actions --- other than retention of power --- can be judged.
We have discussed a physical Atlantis for years. Perhaps the right way to accomplish all of our goals is to find a much smaller, debt-ridden country that would be willing to grant independence as a condition for the sale. This way we can start with a clean slate with regard to distortions in the laws and customs of existing societies.
3) As the child of a citizen in the country from which their parent(s) came from, they can get citizenship in that country.
Load more comments...