Pragmatism

[mrocktor]

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.

Gary, you are asking that people show you that the results of looting are bad for the looter in order to prove that looting is bad. That is called "Pragmatism".

[hernan]

:: nod ::

I was planning to spend some time on this but as things turned out, I think my question has been answered (to my satisfaction anyway), per my above summation.

But I'll go out on a limb here and take a stab at some generalizations:

* I probably give more weight to the reality of reality than strict Pragmatism entails though I think that Objecivists give far too much weight to the idea that Pragmatists are not realists.

* I am of the view that Pragmatism is incomplete particularly with respect to axiomatic values. I don't know that true Pragmatists would hold that view.

* I tend to be more extreme in personalizing Pragmatism wheras I think Pragmatic philosophers tend more toward a community undestanding of what is pragmatic.

* I treat Pragmatism on a relative scale (expected cost of inquiry) whears I'm not certain this is an orthodox Pragmatic view.

Well, I hope that will suffice. I'm not sure there is much left to discuss in this tread but I'll check back in case.

Meanwhile, let's go do some looting.

[y_feldblum]

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.

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:

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

And then I ask:

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

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!

Edited March 17, 2007 by y_feldblum

[y_feldblum]

I was planning to spend some time on this but as things turned out, I think my question has been answered (to my satisfaction anyway), per my above summation.

But I'll go out on a limb here and take a stab at some generalizations:

* I probably give more weight to the reality of reality than strict Pragmatism entails though I think that Objecivists give far too much weight to the idea that Pragmatists are not realists.

* I am of the view that Pragmatism is incomplete particularly with respect to axiomatic values. I don't know that true Pragmatists would hold that view.

* I tend to be more extreme in personalizing Pragmatism wheras I think Pragmatic philosophers tend more toward a community undestanding of what is pragmatic.

* I treat Pragmatism on a relative scale (expected cost of inquiry) whears I'm not certain this is an orthodox Pragmatic view.

Well, I hope that will suffice. I'm not sure there is much left to discuss in this tread but I'll check back in case.

Meanwhile, let's go do some looting.

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?

[hernan]

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.

How about this simple idea: truth is a function of consequence.

Please answer: why should we believe reality to be real?

Because it is a useful belief. (It contributes to survival and flourishing.)

And is reality, in fact, real, irrespective of what we choose to believe?

It is certainly useful to believe in reality irrespective of what others might choose to believe.

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!

That may well all be true but as I noted previously, it is not the Pragmatic answer to the question.

[Starblade Enkai]

How about this simple idea: truth is a function of consequence.

What about A is A? What if there was some case in which assuming such made it difficult for you to survive? IE, suppose you had no skills in the real world, but was born as a preacher's son? You are trying to teach him that you have learned enough about God to be able to be considered a preacher. Then he throws at you a contradiction not just between God and some known fact, but a contradiction in God. You have a choice. You can choose to be unable to explain away this contradiction, and thus fail to endorse God, and thus be thrust unto a world where you have no useful skills, and probably die, or you could explain away the contradictions by holding God as primary. You then go on to preach that God is wonderful and benevolent, and inspire millions of people who all do "good" deeds, and make the world a "better place", at least as far as your religion is concerned.

Which would you choose?

Because it is a useful belief. (It contributes to survival and flourishing.)

But how do you KNOW it is?

It is certainly useful to believe in reality irrespective of what others might choose to believe.

True, but what if it wasn't?

That may well all be true but as I noted previously, it is not the Pragmatic answer to the question.

So what IS the Pragmatic answer to the question? Most importantly, does it make sense? Is it true because it makes sense? What does 'making sense' mean? What if it were pragmatic to argue something that does NOT make sense?

[Inspector]

How about this simple idea: truth is a function of consequence.

Precisely backwards: consequence is a function of truth.

Because it is a useful belief. (It contributes to survival and flourishing.)

Yes, but why? Because, more fundamental than its usefulness: it is a true belief. It is a belief that represents the facts of reality. It is useful only inasmuch as it does that.

That may well all be true but as I noted previously, it is not the Pragmatic answer to the question.

So if that is true, as you say, and it is not the Pragmatic answer, as you say, then ergo the Pragmatic answer is not true. Or at least it does not give you this fundamental truth. The point is: here is, by your own admission, where you should reject Pragmatism in favor of Objectivism.

[hunterrose]

If the difference in means are inconsequential then the Pragmatist is not concerned with them.

But this shackles the pragmatist to his capacity to experience consequences. To borrow from the looting thread, a pragmatic dictator is not concerned (and ought not be concerned according to Pragmatism?) with whether his means will lead to his disaster until the consequences actually play out, until his evil actually becomes consequential, until the bombs are over Baghdad or nukes over Hiroshima or the able men go on Strike. Isn't this myopia inevitable to pragmatism?

You are asking that people show you that the results of looting are bad for the looter in order to prove that looting is bad. That is called "Pragmatism".

[KendallJ]

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.

Hi Gary, I was not trying to imply that you indeed were a pragmatist, which is why I used the quotes. I realize you may be testing the proposition, etc... However, you are arguing from an empirical perspective and I doubt any Objectivist will convince you if you truly believe what you say, mostly because your epistemological method is exactly what a pragmatist depends on.

I was simply trying to offer hernan a concrete example of someone using the epistemology we were discussing to argue against any sort of definite virtue ethics.

Note: I know you might disagree with me, so I would suggest that we not blur the threads. You have several people arguing your point. If you want to discuss the method you are using then would be happy to discuss that here. If I want specifically to take on your argument, I'll do it over there.

[hernan]

What about A is A?

Early on in the thread I pointed to mathematics (and logic) as domains of certainty. Just because Pragmatism is a great hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail.

Here is an example of where Pragmatism shines:

P1: Matter is composed of quarks and other subatomic particles.

P2: Matter is composed of strings.

Which (mabye both) of these propositions is true?

Pragmatism would say that each is true according to their utility, their ability to make useful prediction. Currently P1 is the prevailing theory. P2 has yet to make any useful predictions but enough people think it might some day that they continue to work on it.

In general, Pragmatism is most useful where uncertainty reigns and that is most of life.

True, but what if it wasn't?

I enjoy counterfactuals as much as the next guy but I think the above is a better illustration. If P2 is proven true is P1 false? If ever string theory is proven does P1 become false? Does reality change with the state of scientific knowledge?

So what IS the Pragmatic answer to the question? Most importantly, does it make sense? Is it true because it makes sense? What does 'making sense' mean? What if it were pragmatic to argue something that does NOT make sense?

Pragmatism says that reality is real because it is useful to think of it as such. That makes sense to me. If I had some doubt about the reality of reality I might be motivated to seek a better answer. But I've spent more time in this thread on the question of is reality real than ever before in my life. It's just not a question I consider worthwhile. That is a pragmatic judgement about the utility of exploring the question of whether reality is real.

Because, more fundamental than its usefulness: it is a true belief.

Ah, but this is the key insight of Pragmatism: there is nothing more important than usefulness. As Dewey stated: "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." In Objectivist terms, that means ordering inquiry around the goal of survival and flourishing. If you really valued surival and flourshing you would become a Pragmatist.

But this shackles the pragmatist to his capacity to experience consequences.

If I understand you correctly this is the straw man that that we examined early in the thread. It is certainly not the case that a Pragmatist limits himself to his own experiences. I am bibliophile precisely because I value the experence of others. And Pragmatists certainly derive generlized principles from experience which serve a variety of purposes.

To borrow from the looting thread, a pragmatic dictator is not concerned (and ought not be concerned according to Pragmatism?) with whether his means will lead to his disaster until the consequences actually play out, until his evil actually becomes consequential, until the bombs are over Baghdad or nukes over Hiroshima or the able men go on Strike. Isn't this myopia inevitable to pragmatism?

This is again a straw man. Pragmatists are concerned with future consequences of choices. The key difference between Objectivism and Pragmatism is that the former is concerned with means apart from ends, with choices irrespective of consequences.

[knast]

I am a fan of Pragmatism (Peirce et alia) as well as Objectivism but I recall that Rand was critical of Pragmatism for some reason though I cannot now find her argument.

What was Rand's main criticism of Pragmatism? Can someone help me with a citation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

http://www.radicalacademy.com/amphilosophy7.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyscho.../pragmatism.htm

What is the philosophy of Pragmatism? The Radical Academy: "In A Pluralistic Universe (1909) and Essays in Radical Empiricism (1912), [William] James developed his metaphysical position: there is no fixed external world to be discovered by one's mind but instead a "humming-buzzing confusion" that one organizes through experience. The universe, as well as one's knowledge of it, is continuously evolving. Never complete, it cannot be reduced to a single underlying substance." And: "He acknowledges a stream of experiences but not a stream of conscious experiences. Therewith he denies that in knowledge the relation between the knowing subject and the object to be known is fundamental, which almost all modern philosophers had taken for granted. This denial has induced many contemporary philosophers, though opposed to James' views, to reconsider the bases and starting points of their own thoughts."

What does this mean? In order to fully understand it we have to consider the pragmatic concept of "truth": "Theories, he felt, are 'instruments' that humans use to solve problems and should be judged in terms of their 'cash value' or practical consequences for human conduct." And: "He [William James] developed the notion of truth as a 'leading' that is useful: it can change as human experience changes. The morality, as well as the truth, of an idea or action should be judged, according to James, in a similar way -- in terms of its outcome in human experience."

Let us concretize all of this: Were there any WMD:s in Iraq? If it gives the Bush administration a legitimate reason to invade Iraq then its "true". That is, if there were a benefit of some sort in thinking Iraq actually possessed these weapons, then its a "useful" belief, and therefore it is also "true". Whether or not there really were any WMD:s doesn't matter to the pragmatic mind. We are not to be concern with the objective reality, the facts of reality, because there is no such thing according to Mr James and his pragmatic ilk.

Since there is no objective reality and since "truth" consists of whatever "works", pragmatism amounts to nothing more than an extreme form of subjectivism. Subjectivism is a false and dangerous idea. And that, in essence, is why Objectivism regards the philosophy of Pragmatism as false, bad and dangerous.

Edited March 17, 2007 by knast

[Cogito]

The key difference between Objectivism and Pragmatism is that the former is concerned with means apart from ends, with choices irrespective of consequences.

Patently false. Where do you get the idea that Objectivism is concerned with "means apart from ends" or "choices irrespective of consequences"?

[Edit below]

To be completely clear, I'm asking that you substantiate your idea, ideally with direct quotes from Rand (by whom Objectivism is defined).

Edited March 17, 2007 by Cogito

[Inspector]

Pragmatism says that reality is real because it is useful to think of it as such.

Yes and that is why pragmatism is wrong. Reality is real, period. All divergence from this idea is insanity. To even ask the question of usefulness is to practice the fallacy of the stolen concept. Are you familiar with that term?

[hernan]

What is the philosophy of Pragmatism? The Radical Academy: "In A Pluralistic Universe (1909) and Essays in Radical Empiricism (1912), [William] James developed his metaphysical position: there is no fixed external world to be discovered by one's mind but instead a "humming-buzzing confusion" that one organizes through experience. The universe, as well as one's knowledge of it, is continuously evolving. Never complete, it cannot be reduced to a single underlying substance."

Thanks for finding this. Now at last we have a at least a partial answer to where that odd sentence about changing reality came from.

Doing a little more digging around what I found is that in addition to his work on Pragmatism, James also developed a theory which he called Radical Empiricism. Obviously there is overlap between the two and some confusion but as best as I can determine they are not the same nor does Pragmatism imply Radical Empiricism.

Certainly I would not describe myself as a follower of Radical Empiricism and I have no intention of defending it (though it does look like a fun mental excursion).

[hernan]

Yes and that is why pragmatism is wrong. Reality is real, period. All divergence from this idea is insanity. To even ask the question of usefulness is to practice the fallacy of the stolen concept. Are you familiar with that term?

Yeah, of course, and 1+1=2 period. Anyone who demonstrates that 1+1=2 by use of wood blocks is just plain wrong.

Where do you get the idea that Objectivism is concerned with "means apart from ends" or "choices irrespective of consequences"?

To be completely clear, I'm asking that you substantiate your idea, ideally with direct quotes from Rand (by whom Objectivism is defined).

I dont have any Rand quotes handy but you can scan back in this thread to find people claiming this of Objectivism.

My original position was that Objectivism and Pragmatism were compatible. But I was told that I was wrong because Pragmatists were concerned only with consequences and not with means.

[knast]

Thanks for finding this. Now at last we have a at least a partial answer to where that odd sentence about changing reality came from.

Doing a little more digging around what I found is that in addition to his work on Pragmatism, James also developed a theory which he called Radical Empiricism. Obviously there is overlap between the two and some confusion but as best as I can determine they are not the same nor does Pragmatism imply Radical Empiricism.

Certainly I would not describe myself as a follower of Radical Empiricism and I have no intention of defending it (though it does look like a fun mental excursion).

Though it is true that radical empiricism and pragmatism could be treated as entirely separated ideas, this is not relevant in this context. That is because the metaphysical notion of William James and his pragmatic ilk, i.e., "radical empiricism", is used as an argument for his pragmatic concept of truth.

The reason proponents of Pragmatism, such as James, holds that you cannot know whether an idea is true or false before it has been tried, is precisely because they don't regard reality as possessing any objective and fixed identitly. That's why they think you should first try whether or not a idea can "work" before they are willing to judge it.

That's also why Pragmatists, ironically, insist upon never learning from experience. "Sure," they say, "appeasement and diplomacy never worked with Nazi Germany. Or Soviet Russia. Or Iraq. But this is not Iraq. This is Iran. So we have to give appeasement and diplomacy a chance. Maybe it will work this time. Who could possible know in advance?"

When you discover what is "true", according to Pragmatism, you don't discover which ideas and notions that correspond to reality. No, what you do is that by acting upon certain ideas you, in fact, create reality; you provide it with identity. But, surely, it is no fixed identity. Or to once again quote from the Radical Academy article: "Reality is the flux of our sensations coming from what we know not. It is the totality of consciousness, experience permeated with thought. Reality is ever in the making, growing where thinking beings are at work."

Here's a quote from Radical Academy's article on the Pragmatism of John Dewey: "The structure of reality is [according to John Dewey] not fixed and immutable but dependent upon human action, which may modify the data of experience ... an idea is the memory of past experience (Empiricism), and the value of an idea may be known only 'experimentally...in the course of actual inquiries.'" However, for totally unknown reasons, some of these ideas will all of a sudden not "work".

The Pragmatist is not suprised (although he may, at this moment, be struck with terror). Because he views reality as something "flexible" and "mutable", i.e., that A can, when you least expect it, turn into non-A, and vice versa. This is why Pragmatists reject the notion of absolute principles, of absolute truth, and regard the principled man as irrational and dogmatic, and upholds compromising as the main virtue. And that is, as I said, also why they never want to hold any firm convictions, act on principle, never learn from history and are always willing to compromise about everything.

Edited March 17, 2007 by knast

[hernan]

Though it is true that radical empiricism and pragmatism could be treated as entirely separated ideas, this is not relevant in this context. That is because the metaphysical notion of William James and his pragmatic ilk, i.e., "radical empiricism", is used as an argument for his pragmatic concept of truth.

That may well be true for James but that is not Pragmatism and hence a relevant difference. The fact that Radical Empiricism can be used to justify Pragmatism is not equal to the claim that Pragmatism requires Radical Empiricism.

I'm quite content with Pragmatism straight up, minus Radical Empiricism.

That's why they think you should first try whether or not a idea can "work" before they are willing to judge it.

Clearly, Pragmatism gives far greater weight to empricism in judging truth. But you are creating a false dichotomony between empirical knowledge and reason. In virtuall all spheres of life outside of mathematics experience plays a critical role and finding out what works contributes greatly to human knowledge.

The reason proponents of Pragmatism, such as James, holds that you cannot know whether an idea is true or false before it has been tried, is precisely because they don't regard reality as possessing any objective and fixed identitly.

It would be more accurate to say that James simply decided to dispense with reality as a construct to see where the idea led. If you insist painting Pragmatism with the Radical Empiricism brush I won't waste any more time arguing with you.

That's also why Pragmatists, ironically, insist upon never learning from experience.

Funny, previously I was told that it was the Objectivists who insisted upon not learning from experience (principles derived ex nihlo being preferred).

[KendallJ]

Funny, previously I was told that it was the Objectivists who insisted upon not learning from experience (principles derived ex nihlo being preferred).

Who said this?

[KendallJ]

hernan, I had a very nice reply all typed up this morning to your summary of some of your observations, but lost in the netherworld, and rather than retype it again, I see you have been engaged in continuing discussion while I was gone.

I looked to your website to find where you discussed looting just to get a sense of your derivation of ethics, but couldn't find the link again. Can you repost.

But I'll go out on a limb here and take a stab at some generalizations:

* I probably give more weight to the reality of reality than strict Pragmatism entails though I think that Objecivists give far too much weight to the idea that Pragmatists are not realists.

I place weight on that only because I think that and the resultling epistemology directly lead to pragmatist ethics, which I think are abhorent. If you believe that ideas are important, i.e. that they are consequential, then I would think that this should take some importlant to you as well. This from your website makes me want to believe that you hold that view as well.

I have been watchign the looter thread and from the readings I've made a results of this conversation I am starting to get a sense of some of the key differences in epistemology. I can see where a Pragmatist and Objectivists would seem to have common ground because both of us see a fundamentality in cause and effect. There is debate in some circles about whether Objectivist ethics is consequentialist ethics or virtue ethics. The reality is that it is virtue ethics but a virtue defined according to a reality that contains cause and effect. So, like you, consequences carry weight for an Objectivist.

however, I think what I am starting to see as a key difference is that for Objectivists cause and effect come from our metaphysics; whereas, Pragmatists view cause and effect as a "useful" but still epistemological device. Which for me explains a Pragmatists seeming love of the scientific and empiricism as almost primary, regardless of whether the results of that method actually describe reality. As long as you arelooking for something that is useful, and I am looking for an accurate description of reality which can be put to use, then we are in agreement somewhat. But Objectivist reason and Pragmatist empiricism are NOT the same thing.

In the looter thread, Gary has asked for "proof" that looting results in the destruction of the looter. What he means is empirical proof, ie show him that every looter must a priori be destroyed. What Objectivists have been giving him is mechanistic descriptions, (which if he bothers could be substantiated by empirical studies) which is wholly unsatisfactory to him. But in fact this is the issue. Mechanism is part of the description of cause an effect in reality, and crucial part of Objectivist proof (as is the data as well). For an empiricist, mechanism is very unsatisfactory becuase it doesn't necessarily relate to reality, and can't necessarily be used to claim generalization. And his response has been the classical skeptics response, saying in effect"yes, I can see the mechanism, but how can you show that it applies to every looter." Mechanism is a part of inducting reasoning for an Objectivist, it is part of reason and a contributing factor to proof. It does not seem to be for a pragmatist. It is just a useful hypothesis.

I can see where pragmatists and Objectivists might agree on many things in the hard sciences. But it seems that it is exaclty ethics where agreement becomes problematic and divergent, witness the looter thread.

The scientific method is only a part of a larger thing called reason for the Objectivist. Objectivists are specifically interested in inductive methods of which the scientific method is only a subset. I think Pragmatists favor empiricism, i.e. the scienfic method too much, and reject other forms of arriving at inductive generalization, i.e. of integration. This is why consequentialism is all the Pragmatists can come up with as far as ethics is concerned.

* I am of the view that Pragmatism is incomplete particularly with respect to axiomatic values. I don't know that true Pragmatists would hold that view.

I am not sure what you mean by axiomatic values, but if I assume that Pragmatist ethics are purely consequential, then maybe this means the articulation of any sort of virtues, or principles to guide ones actions, other than the sort of cost benefit analysis that pragmatists usually come up with. You tell me if I've mischaracterized it. This is exactly what I would expect. I would suggest to you that this incompleteness in ethics results from an empiricist epistemology.

You've made some unclear statement with regard to your view of hte prudent predator problem. I see Gary on the other thread continuing to beg the question with regard to consequentialism, that is, continuing to assume a consequentialist ethics and then asking for an Objective proof of the consequentailist ethics. No Objectivist answer will satisfy, because Objectivism is not purely a consequentialist ethics. How would you deal with the prudent predator problem? Would you agree with Gary? Would you agree with the predation ethics? On what basis?

* I tend to be more extreme in personalizing Pragmatism wheras I think Pragmatic philosophers tend more toward a community undestanding of what is pragmatic.

What principle do you point to that differentiates the resulting view you hold vs what you think a traditional pragmatist would? The difference must come from somewhere, right? It's not just arbitrary?

[KendallJ]

Clearly, Pragmatism gives far greater weight to empricism in judging truth. But you are creating a false dichotomony between empirical knowledge and reason. In virtuall all spheres of life outside of mathematics experience plays a critical role and finding out what works contributes greatly to human knowledge.

Case in point.

This is not false dichotomy. Experience does play a crucial role in developing human knowledge. I would suggest to you however, that a consequentialist ethics (and hence Pragmatist) would say that experience plays the only role in determining the good.

Empirical knoweldge is a subset of reason so a rational ethics might be expected to be more than consequentialist, wouldn't you say?

Objectivist ethics acknowledges the role of experience in reason. Does Pragmatist ethics acknoweldge more than empirically verifyable consequences?

[hernan]

Who said this?

Here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=140879

hernan, I had a very nice reply all typed up this morning to your summary of some of your observations, but lost in the netherworld, and rather than retype it again, I see you have been engaged in continuing discussion while I was gone.

I am very sorry to hear that, I know how frustrating it can be.

I looked to your website to find where you discussed looting just to get a sense of your derivation of ethics, but couldn't find the link again. Can you repost.

The article was something like "The Virtue of Predation" which I wrote a long time ago as a response to Viable Values. I'm not sure I can even find it again but I remember the gist of it and I've refined my thinking on it since to be more precise. I threw in a couple small notes on the looting thread but haven't had time to read the tread and comment properly there. Perhaps I should start a new thread.

I think we've been dancing around the issue of ethics for a while here. As I noted previously, we've spent a lot of time instead arguing why we agree that reality is real.

Things certainly do get more interesting when we cross into ethics. I've noted from the beginning that Pragmatism takes axiomatic values for granted.

I place weight on that only because I think that and the resultling epistemology directly lead to pragmatist ethics, which I think are abhorent. If you believe that ideas are important, i.e. that they are consequential, then I would think that this should take some importlant to you as well. This from your website makes me want to believe that you hold that view as well.

I do consider it to be a critically important question, one I have invested time in and which I am willing to invest more. (As opposed to arguing about whether reality is real for the correct reasons which is bordering on silly.)

I have been watchign the looter thread and from the readings I've made a results of this conversation I am starting to get a sense of some of the key differences in epistemology. I can see where a Pragmatist and Objectivists would seem to have common ground because both of us see a fundamentality in cause and effect. There is debate in some circles about whether Objectivist ethics is consequentialist ethics or virtue ethics. The reality is that it is virtue ethics but a virtue defined according to a reality that contains cause and effect. So, like you, consequences carry weight for an Objectivist.

This is really what I'm trying to figure out here. On the one had, clearly the first Objectivist criticism of Pragmatism was mistaken. On the other hand, it's a perfectly understandable mistake given the conflation of Pragmatism (yay) and Radical Empericism (boo).

however, I think what I am starting to see as a key difference is that for Objectivists cause and effect come from our metaphysics; whereas, Pragmatists view cause and effect as a "useful" but still epistemological device. Which for me explains a Pragmatists seeming love of the scientific and empiricism as almost primary, regardless of whether the results of that method actually describe reality. As long as you arelooking for something that is useful, and I am looking for an accurate description of reality which can be put to use, then we are in agreement somewhat.

Let me throw in two interesting twists: Quantum mechanics seems to suggest that cause and effect are not strictly deterministic. The same starting state can lead to different ending states. And free will seems also to fly in the face of hard determinism (at least). Yet many studies show that belief in free will is powerful.

But Objectivist reason and Pragmatist empiricism are NOT the same thing.

Of course not. But I could seem them overlapping in several ways. At a minimum, Pragmatism can be a heuristic within Objectivism for channeling efforts. You could take all of Objectivism at face value and then choose among the choices allowed by Objectivism the one which is expected to produce the best outcome.

In the looter thread, Gary has asked for "proof" that looting results in the destruction of the looter. What he means is empirical proof, ie show him that every looter must a priori be destroyed. What Objectivists have been giving him is mechanistic descriptions, (which if he bothers could be substantiated by empirical studies) which is wholly unsatisfactory to him. But in fact this is the issue. Mechanism is part of the description of cause an effect in reality, and crucial part of Objectivist proof (as is the data as well). For an empiricist, mechanism is very unsatisfactory becuase it doesn't necessarily relate to reality, and can't necessarily be used to claim generalization. And his response has been the classical skeptics response, saying in effect"yes, I can see the mechanism, but how can you show that it applies to every looter." Mechanism is a part of inducting reasoning for an Objectivist, it is part of reason and a contributing factor to proof. It does not seem to be for a pragmatist. It is just a useful hypothesis.

I'm not satisfied with this model of choice. If I get rich by crime vs. by invention then the outcomes, the consequences, are obviously not the same though they are similar. Clearly method is part of reality and has its own consequences. On the other hand, if you can't tell the difference between two methods by their consequences are they really different? It seems to me, then, that you can always evaluate a choice by the consequences.

I can see where pragmatists and Objectivists might agree on many things in the hard sciences. But it seems that it is exaclty ethics where agreement becomes problematic and divergent, witness the looter thread.

This is almost certainly true but I am even more on my own in the ethical realm. I and vaguely familiar with basic Pragmatism in the scientific realm, where I think it excels, and in secondary ethics, but I have no idea how Pragmatism would derive the axiomatic values or even if Pragmatists recognize the problem. (People often just take for granted that outcomes can be ordered from bad to good.)

The scientific method is only a part of a larger thing called reason for the Objectivist. Objectivists are specifically interested in inductive methods of which the scientific method is only a subset. I think Pragmatists favor empiricism, i.e. the scienfic method too much, and reject other forms of arriving at inductive generalization, i.e. of integration. This is why consequentialism is all the Pragmatists can come up with as far as ethics is concerned. I am not sure what you mean by axiomatic values, but if I assume that Pragmatist ethics are purely consequential, then maybe this means the articulation of any sort of virtues, or principles to guide ones actions, other than the sort of cost benefit analysis that pragmatists usually come up with. You tell me if I've mischaracterized it. This is exactly what I would expect. I would suggest to you that this incompleteness in ethics results from an empiricist epistemology.

So how do you compute cost and benefit? I don't think Pragmatism can answer that. This is indeed an essential incompleteness. On the other hand, I'm not too excited about Objectivist answers here other than to agree that survival and flourishing are handy measures. They would serve as axiomatic values to Pragmatism.

You've made some unclear statement with regard to your view of hte prudent predator problem. I see Gary on the other thread continuing to beg the question with regard to consequentialism, that is, continuing to assume a consequentialist ethics and then asking for an Objective proof of the consequentailist ethics. No Objectivist answer will satisfy, because Objectivism is not purely a consequentialist ethics. How would you deal with the prudent predator problem? Would you agree with Gary? Would you agree with the predation ethics? On what basis? What principle do you point to that differentiates the resulting view you hold vs what you think a traditional pragmatist would? The difference must come from somewhere, right? It's not just arbitrary?

I really think it deserves a new thread but the answer I give is that it is a function of "friends" and "enemies". It is not virtuous to prey on your friends. It is virtuous to prey on your enemies. Friendship requires bilateral agreement so just because you offer your hand in friendship doesn't make someone your friend.

There is obviously more to it than that but that's the short answer.

Experience does play a crucial role in developing human knowledge. I would suggest to you however, that a consequentialist ethics (and hence Pragmatist) would say that experience plays the only role in determining the good.

It can't, see above discussion of axiomatic values.

Empirical knoweldge is a subset of reason...

Agreed.

...so a rational ethics might be expected to be more than consequentialist, wouldn't you say?

It would have to at least include the axiomatic values. But once some base is established, consequentialism can go forward.

Objectivist ethics acknowledges the role of experience in reason. Does Pragmatist ethics acknoweldge more than empirically verifyable consequences?

I'm glad to hear that. See above 1) axiomatic values, and 2) consequences of methods.

[hernan]

"Empirical knoweldge is a subset of reason..." / "Agreed."

I didn't notice "subset" in that sentence for some reason. I don't actually agree that empirical knowledge is a subset of reason but that empirical knowledge beyond the mere collection of data requires reason.

[softwareNerd]

Here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=140879

Hmm! I think you misunderstood MRocktor's post. See what he says in the second paragraph:

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. (emphasis added)

The flaw in the empiricist approach is to say: focus on reality, reality and experience is the only thing we've got. The (opposite) flaw in the rationalist approach is to say: focus on principles, things must make sense and follow rules. The Objectivist position is that one observes reality, and then organizes that reality in a useful way: into concepts and principles. Then, one uses those concepts and principles to deal with furture expeience. Without concepts and principles, every experience is new (because no two experiences are really identical). Therefore, without concepts and principles, it is impossible to learn from experience.

[Inspector]

Yeah, of course, and 1+1=2 period. Anyone who demonstrates that 1+1=2 by use of wood blocks is just plain wrong.

You're not seeing or not addressing the difference between saying, "1+1=2" and saying, "well, I won't say that I know 1+1=2 but it is "useful" to say that 1+1=2, at least if I have wooden blocks in front of me and can arrange them to demonstrate this. But if you give me non-wooden blocks then I'll have to check if it is useful to say that 1+1=2 for those. But 1+1=2? No, I won't say that."

Edited March 18, 2007 by Inspector

[hernan]

The flaw in the empiricist approach is to say: focus on reality, reality and experience is the only thing we've got. The (opposite) flaw in the rationalist approach is to say: focus on principles, things must make sense and follow rules.

Totally agree. (There is a marginally greater value to Radical Rationalism in that such a person can at lest do mathematics but in general these are equally poor life strategies.)

The Objectivist position is that one observes reality, and then organizes that reality in a useful way: into concepts and principles. Then, one uses those concepts and principles to deal with furture expeience. Without concepts and principles, every experience is new (because no two experiences are really identical). Therefore, without concepts and principles, it is impossible to learn from experience.

I will go along with this description though I think Pragmatism introduces some valuable nuances.