Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pragmatism

Rate this topic


hernan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do know that James tried to fashion some ethics from Pragmatism but at best these were second order ethics relying on unstated first order values. So the question becomes: is Pragmatism merely incomplete (my assertion) or incorrect.

I would agree with your post in general. This last item I think will be born out by pragmatist epistemology, and ultimately whatever serves for its metaethics.

I don't know Pierce very well, but my copy of Jones' A History of Wester Philosophy (book IV) has a whole chapter on him. I haven't finished yet, but I've already read some things that worry me. More when I get through it, but it seems to me as though "truth" for Pierce is somewhat of a Platonic form.

The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality.

He seems to want to believe himself a realist, but the terms he uses seem to give no manner and much doubt as to how to determine if one has a grasp of reality or in fact whether one will ever grasp it. This strikes me as sort of a "Truth is the limit of consensus as time goes to infinity" sort of thinking. Ugh.

To that end, I might start to form the opinion that Pierce's realism actually implies skepticism.

More later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This strikes me as sort of a "Truth is the limit of consensus as time goes to infinity" sort of thinking.

I would suggest caution with the usage of "concensus" as it smacks of social construction and we know the problems that leads to.

Here is what Peirce said:

Proposition P is true if and only if, if inquiery into P (by an indefinite community of inquirers) continues long enough, this inquiery will ultimately result in a permanantly settled belief that P (within an indefinite community of inquirers).

This is actually a stronger reality is true statement than I had remembered.

For Peirce, the pragmatic axiom was about meaning and not truth, directly:

There can be no conception of the absolutely incognizable, since nothing of that sort occurs in experience. But the meaning of a term is the conception which it conveys.

James states it thus (not the focus on future expectations):

The meanign of any proposition whatever is reducible to the future consequences in experience to which that proposition points, consequences which those who accept the proposition ipso factor anticipate as experiences that someone is subsequently to have.

James again:

To copy reality is, indeed, one very important way of agreeing with it, but it is far from being essential. The essential thing is the process of being guided. Any idea that helsps us deal, whether practically or intellectually, with either the reality or its belongings, that doesn't entangel our progress in frustrations, that fits, in fact, and adapts our life to the reality's whole setting, will gree sufficiently to meet with requirement. It will hold ture of that reality.

I think this sets James quite apart from Plato's forms.

Note in the above there is no hint that reality is unreal or changing or otherwise unreliable in of itself, only a realistic treatment of our grasp of it.

My primary source, On Pragmatism, ends with a section explicitly rejecting relativism:

We have to be realistic. There is no escape from the fact that part of our world is as it is independent of what we may think about it, and even of what we may think about anything.

Having gone through this book again more carefully I am more certain than before that the idea:

Because reality changes, "whatever works" will also change - thus, truth must also be changeable and no one can claim to possess any final or ultimate truth.

does not come from the Pragmatists.

BTW, here is an interesting quote from Dewey that nicely explains the goals of Pragmatism:

Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men.

It reminds me of Ayn Rand.

I would be inclined to say that philosophy recovers itself when it deals with my problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I think this thread has fastened around a real issue in the last few posts. I'm not yet convinced that Pragmatism entails what has been attributed to it by Objectivism but I agree with you that this is a possibility.

Of course, the best way to clear that up is to go to the source. I won't have access to my copy of Parallels for a day or two...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ok, give me a couple days to put something together.

Of course, the best way to clear that up is to go to the source. I won't have access to my copy of Parallels for a day or two...

I do know that pragmatism vs. principles is a common theme in the political sphere. And obviously somebody thought Pragmatism, the formal philosophy, entailed changing reality and no final truth or confidence in knowledge. But these are not ideas that I've found in the Pragmatism writings (but I do acknowledge the possibility that they are consequences of Pragmatic axioms though I do doubt that).

Anyway, Ominous Parallels is in my reading queue now and I will write something up in response to the above request by the weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest caution with the usage of "concensus" as it smacks of social construction and we know the problems that leads to.

Well while I agree that concensus can be a charged term in Objectivist circles, if Pierce is determined to put on that shoe and it seems to fit, who am I to avoid suggesting it. You didn't really answer the charge of the quote then. Here it is again:

The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality.

Now, he's not defining an epitemological method here. He is defining what he means by truth, and reality. I've not seen so much seat squirming to avoid saying that there is an actual reality out there. Reality is "the opinion which is fated [sic] to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate." Where is there any referent there to anything about actual existence? These are odd choices of words to be using when trying to answer the question of what is reality, don't you think?

Here is what Peirce said:

This is actually a stronger reality is true statement than I had remembered.

How is this a strong reality statement? I have yet to see an actual referent to reality.

P is true if it results in a "settled belief" amongst those who inquire? Truth as common belief among inquirers sounds an awful lot like concensus.

As I said before, Pierce does seem like he wants to be realist, but his epistomology "floats" in skepticism. He uses science as some Platonic form that is better for no reason that it seems to be more predicitive in the long run than other methods. However at any point in time the existence of reality is simply a "hypothesis" which we cannot prove, but gosh science seems to keep agreeing and keep being predictive of it so we ought to keep using it.

Here is a much stronger reality statement by Pierce: [regarding the method of science and reality]

Its [science's] fundamental hypothesis, restated in more famliar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters are entrely independent of our opinions about them; those are as different as are our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are...

Now then about his epistemological method [bold mine]

It may be asked how I know that there are any Reals. If this hypothesis [that there are Reals] is the sole support of my method of inquiry [science and reason], my method of inquiry must not be used to support my hypothesis. The reply is this: 1. If investigation cannot be regarded as proving that there are Real things, it at least does not lead to a contrary conclusion; but the method and the conception on which it is based remain ever in harmony. Now doubts of the method, therefore, necessarily arise from its practice, as is the case with all the others. [he goes on with additional points that strengthen this idea]

He just "floated" his epistemological method from reality. Reality is a hypothesis. Science does not prove it, but gosh it sure does agree an awful lot. And because it does seems to do so, I'm not going to worry too much ["no doubts necessarily arise"] about the fact that reality is still a hypothesis or about how science actually functions in relation to it. Pragmatist epistemology is now floating on a bed of skepticism that forces one to couch everything in "seems to be's", and "maybe's".

How does this skepticism assert itself? It refuses to allow for any certainty at any given point in inquiry, of anything! Certainty is only a limit as inquiry goes to infinity. That is great for this future utopian state (which is why I called it a Form), which he says you can never actually acheive. Today nothing is fixed, and anything could be called into question by any suitable additional inquirer. Watch how he does it in a clarifying piece written later.

My original essay... assumes...that "a settlement of Belief," or, in other words, a state of satisfaction, is all that Truth, or the aim of inquiry, consists in... [but] if Truth consists in satisfaction, it cannot be any actual satisfaction, but must be the satisfaction which would ultimately be found if the inquiry were pushed to its ultimate and indefeasible issue.
emphasis Pierce's.

So the aim of science is Truth. Truth is a "settlement of Belief", but not any actual settlement, nor can it in any way be proven that it corresponds to reality. It is just a never-to-be-realized "satisfaction".

To me this floating epistomology re-implies skepticism, and is what ultimately results in the popular statement that "what works is most probably true". Truth being a vague "settlement of Belief" reached by inquiry (or science) but which no one can ever state actually corresponds to reality. That is the hypothesis and the reason that the glaring word probably must and will always be in the statement.

Maybe Pierce is not a skeptic, but any skeptic on the planet can reintroduce "unsettlement" of Belief by adding to the inquiry. And who is the Pragmatist to stop him? A skeptic being able to constantly drag a Pragmatist around by the nose converts the Pragmatist into a defacto skeptic since he cannot stop the Skeptic in his tracks.

Objectivism on the other hand asserts a completely different epistemological link which describes the mechanism by which science is related to reality, essentially as a discovery of cause and effect. Reality is real and it does not need science to prove it. Objectivism fixes metaphysics simply by saying "look around." Science does not prove reality; it discovers its nature. To that effect anything discovered by proper rational inquiry can be taken for certain in its context, and any new information does not overturn certainty, but rather corrects or expands the applicable context. Objectivism stops the skeptic dead in his tracks.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not clear to me at this point where Pragmatism and Objectivism conflict except insofar as Objectivism might concern itself with details that are inconsequential.
Pragmatism seems (to me) to throw objectivity out the window. Anyone can call himself a pragmatist; the guy who plays russian roulette for cash, the gal who realizes it doesn't doesn't benefit her in the long run to play, the animal who takes the gun and murders people for fun and profit, the idiot who purposely shoots himself in the foot in order to not have to go to work today, etc.

Of course, I don't exactly understand what pragmatism refers to. What would not count as pragmatism, beyond an explicit pursuit of detrimental consequences? What non-pragmatic system doesn't consider consequences, in some form or another?

I would agree that pragmatism, as a stand-alone system, is incomplete moreso than incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pragmatism seems (to me) to throw objectivity out the window. Anyone can call himself a pragmatist; the guy who plays russian roulette for cash, the gal who realizes it doesn't doesn't benefit her in the long run to play, the animal who takes the gun and murders people for fun and profit, the idiot who purposely shoots himself in the foot in order to not have to go to work today, etc.

In fact, we have just such a "pragmatist" arguing right now. If hernan will go to the "Looting... destruction looter." thread he will see somone arguing the free rider premise using exactly this basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pragmatism seems (to me) to throw objectivity out the window. Anyone can call himself a pragmatist...

Anyone can call themselves an Objectivist too, or a Catholic for that matter.

; the guy who plays russian roulette for cash, the gal who realizes it doesn't doesn't benefit her in the long run to play, the animal who takes the gun and murders people for fun and profit, the idiot who purposely shoots himself in the foot in order to not have to go to work today, etc. Of course, I don't exactly understand what pragmatism refers to. What would not count as pragmatism, beyond an explicit pursuit of detrimental consequences? What non-pragmatic system doesn't consider consequences, in some form or another?

At the simplest level, Pragmatism discards distinctions without a consequential difference. More generally, it asks the questions: "what mental constructs enable me to best achieve my goals."

In fact, we have just such a "pragmatist" arguing right now. If hernan will go to the "Looting... destruction looter." thread he will see somone arguing the free rider premise using exactly this basis.

This does raise an interesting point worth discussing further, perhaps there. Where is this looting thread? Maybe I should join it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not seen so much seat squirming to avoid saying that there is an actual reality out there. Reality is "the opinion which is fated [sic] to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate." Where is there any referent there to anything about actual existence?...How is this a strong reality statement? I have yet to see an actual referent to reality.

I guess I don't read it that way.

What I read is that existence of reality is taken for granted but the perception of reality is limited by experience hence the iterative approximation of science.

However at any point in time the existence of reality is simply a "hypothesis" which we cannot prove, but gosh science seems to keep agreeing and keep being predictive of it so we ought to keep using it....He just "floated" his epistemological method from reality. Reality is a hypothesis.

Let's just suppose for a moment that you are correct, that this is what he was thinking. Would you not agree that there are real consequential benefits from belief in the hypothesis of reality? And if this is the case, wouldn't a Pragmatist then agree that reality exists? And if the Pragmatist and the Objectivist both agree that reality exists then the claim of a difference between them is an inconsequential theoretical difference and hence (according to Pragmatism) not a true difference.

How does this skepticism assert itself? It refuses to allow for any certainty at any given point in inquiry, of anything! Certainty is only a limit as inquiry goes to infinity.

I'm no more a mind reader than you but I'd be willing to bet that Pierce was speaking here of knowledge based on emprical observation, not, say, mathematics as we previously discussed. In the realm of science, certainty is always open to challenge by new facts. But as I noted earlier Pragmatsist are not driven to challenge every belief as skeptics are inclined. Rather, Pragmatists are interested in what I would call rational self-interested inquiry.

Truth is a "settlement of Belief", but not any actual settlement, nor can it in any way be proven that it corresponds to reality. It is just a never-to-be-realized "satisfaction".

I guess I'm lost on why you seek 100% certainty over, say, 99.9999999999% certainty.

Maybe Pierce is not a skeptic, but any skeptic on the planet can reintroduce "unsettlement" of Belief by adding to the inquiry. And who is the Pragmatist to stop him? A skeptic being able to constantly drag a Pragmatist around by the nose converts the Pragmatist into a defacto skeptic since he cannot stop the Skeptic in his tracks.

I have to disagree here. This nose dragging could only occur if the Pragmatist were uninterested in the relative value of inquiries, willing to treat the uncertainty about life on mars equal to the uncertainty that the mars is spherical. Skeptics question for sport, Pragmatists don't.

Objectivism on the other hand asserts a completely different epistemological link which describes the mechanism by which science is related to reality, essentially as a discovery of cause and effect. Reality is real and it does not need science to prove it. Objectivism fixes metaphysics simply by saying "look around." Science does not prove reality; it discovers its nature. To that effect anything discovered by proper rational inquiry can be taken for certain in its context, and any new information does not overturn certainty, but rather corrects or expands the applicable context. Objectivism stops the skeptic dead in his tracks.

It sounds to me as if your test is how effective the philosophy is in debate settings.

What I find attractive about Pragmatism is that it is an effective tool for survival and flourshing. I'm not so much interested in stopping skeptics in their tracks so much as outliving and out earning them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find attractive about Pragmatism is that it is an effective tool for survival and flourshing.

And in this, you are mistaken. Pragmatism can only tell you how to deal with problems already dealt with. Furthermore, the fact that you judge the outcomes of previous experience as "good" or "not good" (by whatever arbitrary standard you decide to adopt) based only on observed results, you are forever doomed to not achieving your stated goals in the long term - because of the unseen effects of your actions.

By deriving principles from reality, you know what to do - even if you never encountered a given situation before. And you are able to choose the right course of action in order to achieve objective good - furthering your own life as a rational individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in this, you are mistaken. Pragmatism can only tell you how to deal with problems already dealt with. Furthermore, the fact that you judge the outcomes of previous experience as "good" or "not good" (by whatever arbitrary standard you decide to adopt) based only on observed results, you are forever doomed to not achieving your stated goals in the long term - because of the unseen effects of your actions.

I find this to be a very peculiar argument. It is almost as if you have no confidence in reality.

To the extent that reality is real and there are principles that can be derived from experience one can anticipate unseen effects. For example, I don't see the effect of making an appointment with the dentist until I show up. But I can certainly reason from experience that the dentist will be waiting to take me on the appointed time because I have experienced the unseen effects before (or someone else has and reported them to me). On the other hand, effects that are never seen are not real effects.

Your criticism hinges on the claim that reality does change and that the past is no guide to the future, precisely the criticism that is supposed leveled against Pragmatism. To the extent that reality is consistent, this is not something to worry about except insofar as experience is limited (which is indeed a fact of life and the reason knowledge accumulates over time).

By deriving principles from reality, you know what to do - even if you never encountered a given situation before. And you are able to choose the right course of action in order to achieve objective good - furthering your own life as a rational individual.

If by "rational individual" you mean one who follows principles derived from reality without the aid of experience then that might well be tautologically true. However, actual life skills (survival and flourshing) tend to improve with experience and learning from the experience of others. Science progresses through observationa and experimentation. Engineering and business through trial and error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this to be a very peculiar argument. It is almost as if you have no confidence in reality.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, considering that my argument is that it is not sufficient to know that something "works" without knowing why something "works".

To the extent that reality is real and there are principles that can be derived from experience one can anticipate unseen effects.

No, you can't. A pragmatist won't know implementing a minimum wage causes unemployment until he (or someone else) tries it and observes that effect (if he is smart enough to correlate the long term effect with the cause - which is also not guaranteed). A pragmatist won't know that lying to "protect" a relationship from some devastating fact will only lead to the destruction of the relationship beyond anything the original fact could have done - until he does it.

Pragmatism is incapable of giving you any guide - unless you have already been through the situation before.

For example, I don't see the effect of making an appointment with the dentist until I show up. But I can certainly reason from experience that the dentist will be waiting to take me on the appointed time because I have experienced the unseen effects before (or someone else has and reported them to me). On the other hand, effects that are never seen are not real effects.

Using a mundane example only strenghtens my point. How would you go apply this to making an apointment with a hitman? Are the "effects" of your actions not real merely because you have no experience to work from? No.

Your criticism hinges on the claim that reality does change and that the past is no guide to the future, precisely the criticism that is supposed leveled against Pragmatism.

No, its not. It hinges on the claim that you don't have experience in everything life will throw at you and you need a way to deal with the new. With principles, you can apply them to any situation - whether you have applicable experience or not. Just to drive the point home: faced with a space alien in his back yard (or any other unforeseen circumstance), a pragmatist is paralyzed. A principled thinker is not.

Engineering and business through trial and error.

Then let me ditch my conceptual understanding of aeronautics and systems engineering. All I need is a quarter to flip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, considering that my argument is that it is not sufficient to know that something "works" without knowing why something "works".

I think we covered this before. Your distinction between "why" and "that" seems to rest on the belief that Pragmatists are unable to reason from the specific to the general.

No, you can't. A pragmatist won't know implementing a minimum wage causes unemployment until he (or someone else) tries it and observes that effect (if he is smart enough to correlate the long term effect with the cause - which is also not guaranteed). A pragmatist won't know that lying to "protect" a relationship from some devastating fact will only lead to the destruction of the relationship beyond anything the original fact could have done - until he does it.

Again, this seems like a straw man. Think about the challenge of landing men on the moon. The engineering was established by a combination of empericism and reasoning. It was neither the case that Saturn 1 was launched directly at the moon with men aboard nor that putting men on the moon was an accidental discovery. The success rested on layers of empirical observation and expectations about the implied consequences of doing something new.

Using a mundane example only strenghtens my point. How would you go apply this to making an apointment with a hitman? Are the "effects" of your actions not real merely because you have no experience to work from? No.

I suppose if I was going to hire a hitman I would go through a process similar to above.

No, its not. It hinges on the claim that you don't have experience in everything life will throw at you and you need a way to deal with the new. With principles, you can apply them to any situation - whether you have applicable experience or not. Just to drive the point home: faced with a space alien in his back yard (or any other unforeseen circumstance), a pragmatist is paralyzed. A principled thinker is not.

If reality is a reliable, as both of us seem to believe, then it makes perfect sense to base expectations on past experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't read it that way.

What I read is that existence of reality is taken for granted but the perception of reality is limited by experience hence the iterative approximation of science.

This is getting interesting now Hernan. First you suggested that Peikoff (or others) might be trying to knock down a stawman version of Pragmatism

Then I try to comment directly from pragmatist writings, and you suggest, without taking issue with my representation of what the Pragmatist actually said, that that might not have been what he meant.

Where does this version of "true" pragmatism exist exactly? And can you show it to me, other than your own interpretations of what you think othe people meant.

Let's just suppose for a moment that you are correct, that this is what he was thinking. Would you not agree that there are real consequential benefits from belief in the hypothesis of reality? And if this is the case, wouldn't a Pragmatist then agree that reality exists :huh: ?

No, not if we're actually making the supposition you asked in the first place, no. I realize this might be fantastic for you, but what exactly do you think it means when Pierce says (paraphrase) "if the hypothesis of reality is used to justify science, then science cannot be used to justify reality."? It seems that the defenders of pragmatism want that to mean something than it actually says, but frankly I don't see it anywhere. Rather than suggesting this to me, if you can find some pragmatist like Pierce actually asserting that reality exists, then I'm happy to consider it.

I'm no more a mind reader than you but I'd be willing to bet that Pierce was speaking here of knowledge based on emprical observation, not, say, mathematics as we previously discussed. In the realm of science, certainty is always open to challenge by new facts. But as I noted earlier Pragmatsist are not driven to challenge every belief as skeptics are inclined. Rather, Pragmatists are interested in what I would call rational self-interested inquiry.

I guess I'm lost on why you seek 100% certainty over, say, 99.9999999999% certainty.

You should go look at that other thread and see how certain the pragmatist is of anything actually corresponding to reality.

I have to disagree here. This nose dragging could only occur if the Pragmatist were uninterested in the relative value of inquiries, willing to treat the uncertainty about life on mars equal to the uncertainty that the mars is spherical. Skeptics question for sport, Pragmatists don't.

How is a pragmatist to judge what is an equivalent inquiry. What is the basis to judge? If mars cannot actually be shown to be real, then what is the difference between life on it and the sphericity of it?

What I find attractive about Pragmatism is that it is an effective tool for survival and flourshing. I'm not so much interested in stopping skeptics in their tracks so much as outliving and out earning them.

Objectivism is the practical tool for survival, and it sounds to me as though you dearly wish that pragmatism really was Objectivism when it really is not. You started the thread asking what Objectivism has to say about Pragmatism. Several people told you, to which you wondered if they were describing "true" pragmatism. However, based on my short time reading, I remain unconvinced that Objectivist commentators got it wrong.

But since we're now no longer looking to what Pragmatists actually said and instead to what you think they meant, you will need to present what you think pragmatism is and back it up consistently in order for anyone to try to argue you much more. As for me I'm not going to argue with the version of Pragmatism is in your head, because I have no idea what that is.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I try to comment directly from pragmatist writings, and you suggest, without taking issue with my representation of what the Pragmatist actually said, that that might not have been what he meant. Where does this version of "true" pragmatism exist exactly? And can you show it to me, other than your own interpretations of what you think othe people meant. No, not if we're actually making the supposition you asked in the first place, no. I realize this might be fantastic for you, but what exactly do you think it means when Pierce says (paraphrase) "if the hypothesis of reality is used to justify science, then science cannot be used to justify reality."? It seems that the defenders of pragmatism want that to mean something than it actually says, but frankly I don't see it anywhere. Rather than suggesting this to me, if you can find some pragmatist like Pierce actually asserting that reality exists, then I'm happy to consider it.

The quote is simply an observation about circularity. As for seeking a quote asserting that reality exists, I refer you back to my previous comments. If the existence of reality is a useful, consequential construct then that alone is justiication. If you want to claim that it is insufficient justification then you are the skeptic.

How is a pragmatist to judge what is an equivalent inquiry. What is the basis to judge? If mars cannot actually be shown to be real, then what is the difference between life on it and the sphericity of it?

I don't know why you regard mars as unreal.

Objectivism is the practical tool for survival, and it sounds to me as though you dearly wish that pragmatism really was Objectivism when it really is not. You started the thread asking what Objectivism has to say about Pragmatism. Several people told you, to which you wondered if they were describing "true" pragmatism. However, based on my short time reading, I remain unconvinced that Objectivist commentators got it wrong.

I am beginning to see where Pragmatism and Objectivism diverge and I don't see anything attractive in the Objectivist path. You seem concerned, for example, that Pierce doesn't "actually assert" the existence of reality when there is no reason to believe that he questions its existence. The original criticism that was offered was that Pragmatism eschewed principles altogether in favor of ad hoc pattern matching which is quite obviously a straw man. There does seem, though, to be a real difference in how each weights reasoning and empricism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If reality is a reliable, as both of us seem to believe, then it makes perfect sense to base expectations on past experience.

Why is this so? What is the causal relationship, the why, connecting a stable reality with our ability to know it?

If the existence of reality is a useful, consequential construct then that alone is justiication. If you want to claim that it is insufficient justification then you are the skeptic.

I don't know why you regard mars as unreal.

Mars is unreal because its existence is not a useful, consequential construct to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this so? What is the causal relationship, the why, connecting a stable reality with our ability to know it?

Is the concept of a causal relationship consequential? I would say so (in general). It's a valuable innovation in human thought that merits use.

Mars is unreal because its existence is not a useful, consequential construct to me.

Ah, sorry. Fine with me. I was actually planning a similar contrast but thought the mars example would be simpler.

So how about an inquiry into whether Aristotle's wife was unfaithful vs. whether your own wife is unfaithful? The latter is obviously (?) more consequential than the former and thus it would be in one's rational self interest to investigate it more vigorously.

In general, we can reason about the value of inquiries just as we can reason about anything. What is the expected consequence of investigating the claim that Aristotle's wife was unfaithful vs. that your own wife is unfaithful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can call themselves an Objectivist too, or a Catholic for that matter.
But anyone can't call every ethical choice an Objectivist one (or even a Catholic one for intents and purposes). E.g. raping isn't a proper ethical choice under Objectivism or (unless god tells you otherwise...) Catholicism.

On the other hand, raping in any situation can be pragmatic to some folks. And it can never be pragmatic for other folks. And some other idiots will find it to be a pragmatic choice in some situations and non-pragmatic in others. Pragmatism (as an ideology in and of itself) is milquetoasty in that anything can be considered to be subsumed under it.

At the simplest level, Pragmatism discards distinctions without a consequential difference. More generally, it asks the questions: "what mental constructs enable me to best achieve my goals."
In other words, pragmatism (ought this be capitalized?) is concerned with the end, and without concern for the means? That's certainly a difference between pragmatism and Objectivism...

Where is this looting thread? Maybe I should join it.
Uh oh... :thumbsup:

I'll have to pore through the rest of the posts of this thread, it is of some interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

y_feldblum is using your assertions against you, hernan.

The Looting thread is here.

You can find any of these active threads by clicking the "View New Posts" link at the top of the page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hernan, I suggested early to you that the problems with pragmatism were to be found in consistencies in its epistemology. Those will necessarily lead to the claims that Objectivists make about ethics. You said you were willing to consider the case.

While you're not sure if Pierce meant what he said about reality, you've said exactly the same thing in your "reality as a construct" statement.

If your metaphysics consists of "What is useful, is."

And your epistemology consists of "Science is used to study what is 'consequential'."

How long do you think it will be before the ethical consequence, namely "Whatever works is the good" will be brought up?

I know that you keep thinking that Objectivists have mis-characterized Pragmatism, but you are doing a very good job of showing me that you are in fact a pretty consistent pragmatist and seem to be actually following right down the path of what Pierce and others actually said was the case.

In fact, most Pragmatists that we've seen, argue the case of the prudent predator, just as Mr. Brenner is doing over on the looting thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you're not sure if Pierce meant what he said about reality, you've said exactly the same thing in your "reality as a construct" statement.

If I had said that "reality" is a word would you claim that I believed it to be nothing other than a word? This seem to be your thinking with respect to the construct concept. A Pragmatist (I'll try to remember to capitalize it) is not concerned with correspondence but with consequences. It is sufficient that the concept or reality is useful. Whatever else reality may be is incidental.

If your metaphysics consists of "What is useful, is." And your epistemology consists of "Science is used to study what is 'consequential'." How long do you think it will be before the ethical consequence, namely "Whatever works is the good" will be brought up?

Well, now, for some reason we had not spent much time on this but I agree that there Pragmatism is not as useful. I had noted early on that Pragmatism could be a guide for second order ethical questions but that it took for granted first order values, i.e. you have to have an idea of what the desired outcome is to form a preference.

In fact, most Pragmatists that we've seen, argue the case of the prudent predator, just as Mr. Brenner is doing over on the looting thread.

I once wrote an essay on the virtue of predation, I wonder if I can find that again.

What I've noticed is that we've spent a lot of time disagreeing about things we agree on. We both believe that reality is real but we disagree on why we should believe that reality is real.

It might be more interesting to explore where we have some actual disagreements. The virtue of predation is one (ethics generally). Another that I had been thinking about is Rand's tabula rasa postulate which is factually, but subtly wrong.

To summarize, though, I disagree that the criticisms noted in the earlier part of this tread by Objectivism vs. Pragmatism are valid. I do agree now that there is an important differnece in the way each treats emprical knowledge acquisition. The link between the two is somewhere in the area of skepticism. You believe that the skeptic will lead the Pragmatist by the nose but I have argued to the contrary, that the Pragmatist is immune from the skeptic because the skeptic does not consider the expected value of knowledge inquiry. If you take the expected value of inquiry into account, as Pragmatists do, then you won't waste time worrying about negligable uncertanties.

In other words, pragmatism (ought this be capitalized?) is concerned with the end, and without concern for the means? That's certainly a difference between pragmatism and Objectivism...

I agree with this characterization in the sense that Pratgmatism is more concerned with ends. Obviously ends can result as a consequence of means. But if the difference in means are inconsequential then the Pragmatist is not concerned with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh!! :thumbsup: (incoherent babbling here) ... Cue tape recorder:

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.

:: nod ::

:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, we have just such a “pragmatist” arguing right now. If hernan will go to the “Looting... destruction looter.” thread he will see somone arguing the free rider premise using exactly this basis.

No, in fact I am not a pragmatist. The position I argued on the “Looter” thread is that Objectivism has not provided an adequate “egoistic” (or “selfish”) defense for respecting the rights of others. That criticism does not entail an endorsement of pragmatism – nor any other philosophy for that matter.

Edited by Gary Brenner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...