y_feldblum

Nope, it does not suffice! What does Pragmatism actually say? What are the most important, most generalized positive statements the philosophy has to offer? From everything you have said till now, I cannot piece together a single actual idea which you think Pragmatism, in any form (yours or the originals'), holds. You state vague disagreement after vague criticism after vague handwaving. But what does Pragmatism actually tell us about the world?

Actually, for all I know, you have said nothing as to why we should believe (believe?!) that reality is real. From my last post, I quote you: And then I ask: Please answer: why should we believe reality to be real? And is reality, in fact, real, irrespective of what we choose to believe? A rationalist in the Aristotelian sense (certainly not a pragmatist) knows (doesn't believe) that reality is real, and holds the fact to be axiomatic. Firstly, one extrospectively observes it to be the case. Secondly, one introspectively observes that the idea that reality is real underlies all the knowledge we have. Knowledge is knowledge about, ie, awareness of, the facts of a real world; one's every single act of knowing something presumes that reality is real. Thirdly, one analytically observes that any attempt to deny a real reality must necessarily contradict itself and, therefore, entail the implicit, if unacknowledged, admission that reality is in fact real: if reality were not real, then you are not real, and nothing you think or say is real, and so you have not actually thought or said any denial of a real reality!

Why is this so? What is the causal relationship, the why, connecting a stable reality with our ability to know it? Mars is unreal because its existence is not a useful, consequential construct to me.

Please summarize, in your own words and in an ordered fashion, the essential elements of the philosophy of Pragmatism - as you understand it and as your understanding differs from the standard interpretation.

I shudder to hear mention of any variant of Basic. Visual Basic is evil. It's Kantian! C# and Java are particularly easy to learn, since there are very powerful, free development environments to help you: #Develop for C# and Eclipse SDK for Java.

C# is not interpreted. It is pre-compiled into intermediate language, which is then either pre-compiled (by the software distributor or the local user) or JIT-compiled (on-the-fly) into machine instructions. C# is a language designed to allow the developer to write correct code rapidly. It may prove to be useful for game development via XNA, a game-development platform, but XNA is very recent.

Your posts are, in general, full of "Pragmatism is not this ... and isn't that either ...." (In that regard, it's very akin to the Wikipedia article.) But there's little helpful information as to what Pragmatism actually is. What does Pragmatism actually say about the nature of reality and of knowledge? Is it possible to form abstract, objective, absolute, and certain knowledge? Why (what gives an element of knowledge those various properties)? Pragmatism says: go with what works, but don't bother figuring out why it works. But if you never bother figuring out why something works, then how do you know that it does work? There are a number of possible answers, including: I just intuitively know it works; I just want it to work; I've had some experience with it working before. An Objectivist would immediately recognize the first two options as the epistemologies of intrinsicism and subjectivism. The third option is the one offered by Pragmatism: go with what's worked in the past, but don't bother figuring out why it's worked in the past. But then how do you know that what's worked in the past will continue to work in the future, especially in new contexts where nobody's tried it before? Moreover, why should you go with what's worked in the past, without ever bothering to figure out why it's worked in the past? Without knowing why something works, you can never figure out whether it will continue to work, especially in new contexts, without possibly putting your life on the line. Sure, playing fetch with the dog works on land. Are you willing to try it a mile below the surface of the Pacific? If it's not clear to you where Pragmatism and Objectivism conflict, here it is. Pragmatism says: go with what has worked in the past, without ever bothering to figure out why it has worked in the past. Objectivism says: your success in life, indeed, your very life, requires that you figure out why things work the way they do.

The knowledge that something is "good enough in practice" is very different from the knowledge why it is good enough in practice. The why is, essentially, knowledge of how the identities of the things in question cause those things to act. The why is absolute and certain, it is the essence of induction and of the scientific method, and it is far more than just "good enough in practice". The knowledge that something is "good enough in practice" does not involve discovering the identities and causal relations of the things in question. It bears absolutely no relation to induction or to the scientific method, and relegates pragmatism to the category of things that are not "good enough in practice". A theory of knowledge which says "do not attempt to discover identities and causalities" - which condemns discovering why something works in favor only of discovering that it usually seems to work - is necessarily predicated on one or both of two basic premises: first, that a fixed, stable reality - with identity and causality - does not exist, so there isn't a real why; or second, that the human mind is not capable of discovering and grasping reality, that even if a fixed, stable reality - with identity and causality - does in fact exist, we wouldn't be able to grasp it. On either premise, we as humans are unable to discover why anything is true, and so we are relegated to discovering that it usually works. But reality exists. It is fixed and stable. Everything in it possesses identity. Everything has a certain set of properties and acts in a certain set of ways. And we as humans have the cognitive ability to discover these things. On any question, we have the ability to discover why. This premise contradicts the premises on which pragmatism (especially as it seems you understand it) relies. And that is why pragmatism is wrong.

Goedel's "incompleteness theorem" says that a purely formal deductive system (ie, a purely rationalistic system) is not closed. D'uh. A purely formal deductive system does not have any facts drawn from reality. A system of knowledge is not closed unless it's got facts drawn from reality. Incorporate facts of reality into your purely formal deductive system and presto! you've no longer got a purely formal deductive system. Goedel is an absolute genius for realizing that pure rationalism does not admit the facts of reality into its system. But he is an absolute asshat for confusing a pure rationalism with actual knowledge, and declaring that knowledge is therefore not "closed".

Your logic professor must have pulled a fast one (Goedel's incompleteness theorem) on you.

The external threat of hostile soviet states is ultimately caused by America's internal socialist movement supporting these states. The threat from both socialism and from religion is entirely internal. Moreover, there is a dominant and growing infusion of religion into government and government programs. So, what threat did socialism pose to America that religion does not?

"Stealing jokes" is just plagiarism.

My mistake. Same post, not from a year ago.

Exactly the same post, on another bulletin board, from a year ago.

Because that's how the English language is. Making up new words (or ways to spell words) you want to make a total break with an ideology of tyranny? Yeah.... Doing the same because you don't like men? Ummm....

You stated it. Did you prove it, or at least provide god evidence to the effect that the human intellect is utterly incapable of certainty? If you make such a statement with no evidence, then you make an arbitrary statement, by definition. And if you make the statement denying the the human intellect's capacity for certainty: are you certain that you are right? There is no possible physical evidence for that which is not physical. Maintaining otherwise is maintaining a contradiction. What you did was give philosophical evidence. But since philosophical evidence must ultimately be reducible to physical evidence, you nevertheless maintain a contradiction. There is no evidence, whether physical or philosophical, for that which is outside of existence (by existence I mean: the sum total of everything that exists). Positing that which is absolutely unknowable is making a Kantian leap of faith. You posit the existence of that which is outside of existence (again: the sum total of everything that exists) which, in addition to being a contradiction in terms, is absolutely unknowable and therefore a leap of faith.

If it were just one wiry fool with glasses, holding a knife gingerly in one hand, in a quavering voice asking you kindly to open the register, you would just punch him in the nose and be done with. But how ought one to defend one's property - on his own - against the overwhelming force of three masked gunmen and a really big guy with a club?

Do you make no distinction between taking responsibility for one's normal life: getting a job, paying rent, etc.; and taking responsibility for the fact that your store was just held up at gunpoint?

In the name of political freedom, they overthrew a tyranny and established a constitutional representative republic dedicated (in general) to the protection of individual rights.

In other words, does Kant answer the following question: Why act according to duty?

Or, let us recognize the fact that there is not one shred of direct, observational evidence for god, and let us also recognize the fact that to speak of things for which there is no direct, observational evidence is no more than to speak out of one's ass.

Why do you think possession of a certain amount of money would be a good definition for success as a businessman? Many people who are not businessmen (i.e., who do not own or run a business) have that much money sitting around: celebrities and stars in many areas, heirs of the wealthy, longtime employees, etc.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution are generally directed to the Federal government ("Congress shall make no law", etc). The fourteenth requires the several states to honor the citizenry's same "privileges and immunities" which the Federal government honors, including those of due process and of just compensation for theft by eminent domain. "Due process" bears no necessary relation to conviction. If Congress says so (and if the courts forget that they have the power of judicial review), theft by eminent domain can be done in accordance with due process. But that just means there is a contradiction between the Constitutional permission of theft by eminent domain and the principle of individual rights.

Knowledge of causality is true because it comes from observation of reality. But Kant claimed that the law of causality is false because it pertained to reality, of which no knowledge is possible. This-worldly values are good because they make it possible to for one to live. But Kant claimed that taking the actions required to sustain one's own life is vicious because the good is precisely the opposite: duty to others. Aristotle showed the truth of the law of causality, though Hume missed it. Ayn Rand showed the good of this-worldly values, though too late for Hume to notice.

Hume looked around at the Enlightenment and didn't understand it, so he threw up his hands and said, I don't know how to validate the law of causality, how to prove that value follows fact, etc. It took Aristotle and Ayn Rand to validate and prove these philosophical truths and many others. Kant looked around at the Enlightenment and understood, so he said that the Enlightenment and everything it stood for: causality, this-worldy values, etc., is false and vicious because it is true and good.