On Being Practical: Pragmatism

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
77 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivists always ask that you define your terms. That way you start from the same premise.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are three types. The Righteous who preach dogma. The Debaters who easily out spin the new comers. Both allow no changes other than their own. The third are the Problem Solvers. For them the KISS and Occam's Razor is usually the way to get things done. Watch our dust.l...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why do philosophers feel the need for different definitions from everyone else? Now it seems that for every discussion, we have to determine what dictionary is going to be used, so we understand the terms. I have the same problem with lawyers wanting to use latin, or define terms counter to common usage. This sounds eerily like Bill Clinton wanting to change the definitions of what "is" is. Speak common english ... unless the point is to TRY to be hard to understand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Immigration is the process of acquiring citizenship, do you have another definition such as landing on the territory of?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    LOL. When I say "I pick Jesus today" I am stealing Let's Shrug's phrase (like my GHBs). this is too funny. we scared each other cat. LOL
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nuts, first is observation then if you understand science comes a definition of a problem then identification of the relevant facts then the human step of induction then the confirmation through experiment and "conciliation". Why doesn't anyone know the basics of science?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "That's what citizenship is an agreement by birth...."

    The issue isn't citizenship. It is about immigration. I didn't agree to anything when I was born.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The dictionaries you consulted reflect common usage. If that is where you are comfortable so be it. In the world of c=science and philosophy terms have well defined meanings quite different from your sources. The reason is what philosophers call the difference between the "Folk" and the profession. SO you check the "folk" term in a PC dictionary but if you want to exchange views in a professional discussion you must recognize the professional definitions of terms. In addition to your confusion on the term "pragmatism" there is also the confusion on the term "altruism" . Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for definitions when you wander out of popular usage and into the world of ideas.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dear deeply wounded, pragmatism is a fast growing view in philosophy and philosophy of science that ones feelings not knowledge are the basis of action. The reason is philosophy cannot find a way to link words to reality. Since tenure and grants depend on words not reality it is not surprising that you might not fit If you held to an American view of pragmatism: that is good which works. This consequential view is good in an engineering shop but not at the level of he Federal Reserve Board and Presidential decrees by which we live. There are principles by which life succeeds and they are beautifully and clearly expressed by Ayn Rand. As a philosopher I write papers on the problem of pragmatism and will be delivering one next month at a conference. You are right we need a word to denote the inductive process of trying the new versus the, ":Hey it feels good to me, " approach. Read William Whewell's Theory of Scientific Method in excerpts in Butts. Or the original.. The greatness of scientific achievement is in how we use our brains which await rational use to produce innovate solutions. Good luck.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    For a few years when I was nine to eleven, we were a pretty even match. When I first beat Dad, he kept me up for four or five additional matches. I managed to beat him a second time, and then he wimped out and said it was time for me to go to bed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First is idea, then theory, then experimentation and observation then and only then comes practical use. I thought the definitions were rather plain and easily understood

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    not true unless in a pc dictionary. Sounds more like if it feels good do it without need for explanation. you will have to give better references such as which part of which two European systems? the rest doesn't add up. - or down.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    LOL I hear that JB, the first time I beat my dad playing chess, he kept me up half the night with rematches.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for showing how philosophers and dictionary editors failed awaiting Ayn Rand. Unfortunately as you show there is no coherent definition that allows some one to tell in advance what the outcome of an action will be. Did Galt or Roark doubt the consequences of their actions? Good luck living by the sources of error.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Game people are servants of the rule makers. They are not and can never be true individuals operating in the real world. They hide from the reality of the world by accepting a game where they feel superior to others as price of subordination to the rule makers. In games you can only drill down to the rules, in life you can drill down to the laws of quantum mechanics and particle physics where there are no rules for action only your choice and your values which require a systematic philosophy to think about coherently. A person good at a game is not pragmatic only a slave. Game and chose your master who lets you beat others while life awaits. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When I was a kid, my dad and one other kid were the only worthy chess opponents I knew. Soon the kid moved away, and my dad didn't like getting beaten by a kid. I am sure that I would find a few worthy opponents in this forum.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have money, but not that kind of money. The idea, however, is quite intriguing. I might be willing to do that on a small scale in a state a little cooler than Nevada.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Pragmatism has nothing to do with the scientific method. The scientific method as defined by Bacon and Newton further refined by Whewell is the application of reason and induction to facts of reality. There is no place for the arbitrary feeling of the hope for an outcome. Principles, not pragmatism, are what make the scientific method work. Darwin is a classic and he followed Whewell, his teacher, to produce the greatest argument in the history of science. Deciding to change the oil maybe in your thinking a matter of when it feels right but an engineer will tell you that changing the oil is a matter of principle. . The classic of American can do mentality is Edison and the 7,000 attempts to find the filament for the electric light. He knew the principles, he just did not know what material would meet that need. Americans are famous for getting the job done, by using principles not pragmatism. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One of the more recent monsters born of Pragmatism - Obamacare. 'It's a good thing, so let's vote on it to see what's in it.'
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I worked with all the Federal Land management agencies and they would love It if Congress would sell the Feds 90% of Nevada to a private pirate who would accept payment for leases on the military use lands and manage the rest for maximum return. That would cut BOR, BLM, and DOD's expenses dramatically. That would mean running Harry Reid's empire for capitalism. It would become the fastest growing most productive land in the world. Someone put together a buy team and I will show you how to make billions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Being "pragmatic" is being philosophically an advocate of pragmatism. Pragmatism is a retreat form the work of thinking. This is because you have no positive explanation for your actions in a coherent integrated system of life affirming values. Your gut speaks not your mind. You would have voted for Hitler as he was rebuilding the economy ignoring his clearly defined value of himself as the expression of the German will. The very essence of Objectivism is showing that a consistent set of values is necessary for man to act rationally for his survival. Pragmatism abandons life to the gut where there are nothing but microbes and shit.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo