John Page

I offer the following definition of Pragmatism:
Is there not a contradiction in the Pragmatists position as follows?
1. Pragmatism cannot be holistic without explaining how "which works most effectively" is determined.
2. If you exclude the external determinant from 1. then Pragmatism is saying that acts are "internally" determined by Pragmatism - a contradiction.
3. If you allow the external determinant (and let me call it reality) then ultimately acts and decisions are determined by reality.

So, I have no difficulty admitting that our mental decisions are driven by force of circumstance, and we can invent truths that suit our pragmatic purposes, but at the same time the ultimate judge of our pragmatism can only be reality.

Do you think I am a Pragmatist or a Realist?

Cheers, John

Luiseach

How does this sound? It is pragmatic to be a realist...

Or in other words:

Being realistic is itself a pragmatic decision, since external circumstances are the only measuring sticks we have to test our ideas about the truths we invent?

Am I oversimplifying it?

John Page

But, using very proper nouns for the philosophical positions as defined:

1. A Pragmatist cannot be a Realist (because a Pragmatists denies that we can have authentic knowledge of reality)
2. A Realist may be a Pragmatist (because a Realist can admit imperfect knowledge of reality, but still maintain that universals are physically entities)

Perhaps I'm making this too much of a paper wraps stone, stone blunts scissors, scissors cuts paper exercise.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Darn, I was oversimplifying it.

Okay, then I would guess that you are a realist. Am I right?

Nah. It's a good question...I like quizzes.

John Page

My mind can't make itself up - maybe a realist relativist and a mental pragmatist!

Luiseach

As a 'mental pragmatist,' then, would you agree with the philosophy of existentialism in any way?

*worrying that her questions are becoming tedious*

John Page

In some way, yes, I do believe in the existence of the abstract but only as an aspect of physical reality. I think there is a clear dividing line that can be defined between the union of abstract reality and physical reality.

The other part of existentialism seems to me more to do with an individuals attitude toward life based on their beliefs and discovery of new beliefs. I think that's real - life's an emotional roller coaster.

Cheers, John

* worried that his answers have become opinionated, overbearing and pompous

Luiseach

Nope! Not in the least...

Complexity, precision and thoughtfulness in answers are never overbearing or pompous...not in my book, anyway!

...I will shut up now with all my questions, though...I'm always asking bloody questions....

wordfailure

Hello John Page,

From a certain perspective there is a problem within the quote:


Wait, wait, wait! Where did "truth in the case of statements" come from? "Rightness in the case of actions" is a value judgment just like "value in the case of appraisals" is a value judgment. Truth isn't. Isn't pragmatism a preference for ideas that function as guides of action, their value being determined by the success of the action , as opposed to preference for a secure epistemological foundation? Where does preference enter in if we may retain all attributes?




Nothing wrong with this.


Emoticon notwithstanding, only a philosopher could ask this question. Pragmatism must be rooted in the specific context at hand, and attached to a perspective. A hammer works better than a feather for cracking walnuts. We don't need a philosopher here, the value in this context and from this perspective lies in that which works better. Furthermore, pragmatism need not claim to be holistic, for to do so would be to seek a philosophical ideal, IMO. Isn't pragmatism a rejection, or at least sidestepping, of the idea of a necessity for such ideals?



I don't see a need to exclude external determinants-- well, except for a philosophical need. Maybe I misunderstand? It can appear as if philosophers are unwilling to allow escape from their seemingly somewhat arbitrary premises. It's a bit like when the Christian asks what would God have to do in order for you to believe that He exists. Lemme out!



Wouldn't you say that ultimately acts and decisions are either determined by reality or not determined by reality regardless of whether or not we decide to allow external determinants? This can seem like some kind of role-playing game to me. I'm probably missing something here, too (I'm only half joking).



I think that like all philosophers, in some ways you are an idealist, but a likeable one.

John Page

wordfailure:

Thanks.

I think this is the crux of the matter. I've understood that a "pure" Pragmatist says that truth is pragmatically invented, (having utility through being a way of judging a probable outcome or fact), and there is no absolute or authentic truth.

IMO there is no absolute truth, but there is an authentic truth (albeit subjective) that is not something we invent. Can we know this authentic truth about truth? IMO yes when we figure out how the brain/mind works.

Me, idealist , no, but I do try!

Cheers, John