Pragmatism

[GenSeneca]

Most people think Pragmatism is about simply doing "what works" but that misinterpretation of the philosophy lacks an understanding of the actual ideology.

In the case of Pragmatism, "what works" is confused as being "what solves a problem", this is not the meaning, Pragmatic is not a synonym for practical.

[Truth] means, they say, nothing but this, that ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience, to summarise them and get about among them by conceptual short-cuts instead of following the interminable succession of particular phenomena.

Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally. This is the ‘instrumental’ view of truth taught so successfully at Chicago, the view that truth in our ideas means their power to ‘work,’ promulgated so brilliantly at Oxford. - William James, What Pragmatism Means

As you can see, "what works" is a reference to linking your experience, not actually solving a problem or achieving some desired result. Also note that "truth" has a very fluid meaning in the Pragmatist lexicon, as we'll revisit the topic of truth later in the post.

Pragmatism is an ideological methodology that has nothing to do with achieving desired results, it is not a method for solving problems, it is offered as a way of thinking:

No particular results then, so far, but only an attitude of orientation, is what the pragmatic method means. - William James, What Pragmatism Means

At it's core, Pragmatism is Anti-Rationalist:

Against rationalism as a pretension and a method pragmatism is fully armed and militant. But, at the outset, at least, it stands for no particular results. It has no dogmas, and no doctrines save its method. - William James, What Pragmatism Means

To understand the importance of this, you must understand the term Rationalism:

Rationalism, the philosophical view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. There are, according to the rationalists, certain rational principles—especially in logic and mathematics, and even in ethics and metaphysics—that are so fundamental that to deny them is to fall into contradiction. The rationalist’s confidence in reason and proof tends, therefore, to detract from his respect for other ways of knowing. - Brittanica

To the Pragmatist doctrine, the use of logic and reason are pointless, only an individuals real world experience can be used to gain knowledge. For some this may sound appealing but, thanks to the use of logic and reason, I don't need to experience jumping off a tall building to know I will probably die as a result.

Because Pragmatists claim personal experience is the only source of knowledge, a Pragmatist would say that my claiming knowledge of potential death from jumping off a building is absurd. Absurd because it's based on logic and reason rather than my own personal experience. Through the use of logic and reason, I can learn from the experience of others, or use the logical process of deductive reasoning, but because of its foundation in Fallibilism, the Pragmatist doctrine claims any such knowledge is hearsay and must be experienced first hand before I can claim to know it as truth or consider it fact.

Fallibilism: Doctrine that nothing can be known for certain; that is, there is no infallible knowledge, but there can still be knowledge. We need not have logically conclusive justifications for what we know.

This was particularly insisted on by the American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) in his opposition to foundationalism.

The introduction of Fallibilism brings us to the concepts of truth and fact in regards to Pragmatism. As I've already pointed out, Pragmatists reject logic and reason, and as you can see above, they have no qualms about considering something as knowledge despite a total lack of logically conclusive justifications. Once again, the Pragmatist would claim that I cannot know that I will likely die from jumping off a tall building but he can claim I will sprout wings and fly away and, despite the total lack of logically conclusive justification for such a claim, consider it knowledge.

The idea that nothing can be known for certain is of particular interest. Fallibilism claims that the only absolute is there are no absolutes, the only thing that is certain is nothing is certain. I'll take this circular logic and express it in a different literary form:

The next sentence is a Lie.
The previous sentence is the Truth.

To the pragmatist, that makes perfect sense. The concepts of Lie and Truth imply an absolute, some form of certainty, but since there are no absolutes, and nothing is certain, both sentences are equally true and equally false. The only way to determine whether it can be considered knowledge is through personal experience.

The Pragmatist will claim that because there are no absolutes, nothing is black and white - only gray. This is also true for concepts such as fact and fiction, right and wrong, good and evil, etc. To the Pragmatists, it's all a fuzzy inconclusive gray area.

However, this creates a problem for the Pragmatic method, which claims to deal only in facts and truth:

We hold a theory true just in proportion to its success in solving this ‘problem of maxima and minima.’ But success in solving this problem is eminently a matter of approximation. We say this theory solves it on the whole more satisfactorily than that theory; but that means more satisfactorily to ourselves, and individuals will emphasise their points of satisfaction differently. To a certain degree, therefore, everything here is plastic. - William James, What Pragmatism Means

How can there be any truth in an ideology that does not accept absolutes? How can there be any facts in an ideology that does not accept certainty? The Pragmatist answer, everything is "plastic", i.e. a fuzzy gray area that is to be determined by the individual based on his own personal experience.

Outside of personal experience, Pragmatists have found a way to consider things as being true, or as fact. Since all knowledge is subjective to the experience of the individual and held to be fallible, (no matter how well justified through logic and reason) the Pragmatist must rely on the "Consensus" to arrive at truth and fact where his own personal experience is lacking. It was from Pragmatism that we got the phrase, "Perception is Reality", and the Pragmatists have excelled at twisting perceptions in an attempt to form their own reality.

So what of Morality? Big "plastic" gray area there too?

The universe is a system of which the individual members may relax their anxieties occasionally, in which the don’t-care mood is also right for men, and moral holidays in order, - William James, What Pragmatism Means

When it comes to morality, Pragmatism is totally apathetic. So long as a theory satisfatorily moves you from one part of your experience to the next, no matter how depraved or immoral the action might be, it is said to be pragmatic. It is only the result that matters and the result is not solving a problem, experience is the result. In chasing after this result, the ends are said to justify the means.

In conclusion, Pragmatism is a perverse ideology that tries to hide the fact it is an ideology in order to convince people to reject all other ideologies. Pragmatism promotes itself as being based on facts, truth, logic, and reason, but rejects all such concepts as fanciful notions since the Pragmatists believe there are no absolutes and nothing is certain. Pragmatism is said to be "what works" and in order for a theory to be considered pragmatic, it needs only add to your personal experience, solving problems and achieving results is of no consequence. Finally, morality is seen as an obstacle to personal experience and, according to the pragmatist, should be ignored.

 

[Dr.Who]

GenSeneca, thanks for what I think will be an interesting thread. At the moment I am noticing that it is taking a bit of work to wrap my mind around it. maybe when I have time I will read it though a few times.