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 2.
The issue isn't citizenship. It is about immigration. I didn't agree to anything when I was born.
Which is exactly why I will bet one hundred dollars that 95% of the vote goes to the Government Party. Historical and Empirical evidence coupled with an honest evaluation of the population. That's 95% of ALL popular votes cast.The Electoral College will do as they are told.
For my source I use Gump's Mama.
If someone wants to call me a pragmatist, I am not a pragmatist by Rand's definition, but I will gladly be called a chess player pragmatist. When I say that I disagree with another person in this forum (db and Kh on this topic) on strategy, it is not their objectives I disagree with, but with the way to achieve the kind of victory I want.
Load more comments...