Tibor Machan argues that pragmatism cannot work in practice.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/95/Impr ... Pragmatism
Impractical Pragmatism
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
Pragmatism is workable. It works everyday in big ways.
The author is dealing more with small issues pragmatism, which tends to pose more of a delema than big issues pragmatism. That is why he is so dismissive of pragmatism, because he is not looking at the bigger picture. But he did touch on one big pragmatic issue, the bailout of the American auto industry, but did not elaborate on it. Here is a perfect example of the use of pragmatism and why it makes sense to be pragmatic. When all options and outcomes were examined saving the auto industry from bankruptcy was the most practical, workable thing to do because of the number of people who depended on it for a living. Saving it was the economic sensible thing to do. Similarly, it was just as pragmatic and wise to save the banking industry over other interests, even though it was such an odious affair.
One small pragmatic issue the author didn't touch on, being a good example of its importance, is when a wife asks if you like her new hair style. You really don't. But if you want to keep the peace you do the pragmatic thing and tell her you love it.
In international affairs Israel recently did the pragmatic thing. It apologized to Turkey - an apology Turkey demanded if relations between the two countries was to improve - for attacking a Turkish protest ship and killing several protesters on board. Israel swallowed its pride. This was truly a pragmatic move on the part of Israel because it helped enhance its standing in the global community. President Obama, who is on the cover of this issue, was the pragmatist behind the deal.
The author is dealing more with small issues pragmatism, which tends to pose more of a delema than big issues pragmatism. That is why he is so dismissive of pragmatism, because he is not looking at the bigger picture. But he did touch on one big pragmatic issue, the bailout of the American auto industry, but did not elaborate on it. Here is a perfect example of the use of pragmatism and why it makes sense to be pragmatic. When all options and outcomes were examined saving the auto industry from bankruptcy was the most practical, workable thing to do because of the number of people who depended on it for a living. Saving it was the economic sensible thing to do. Similarly, it was just as pragmatic and wise to save the banking industry over other interests, even though it was such an odious affair.
One small pragmatic issue the author didn't touch on, being a good example of its importance, is when a wife asks if you like her new hair style. You really don't. But if you want to keep the peace you do the pragmatic thing and tell her you love it.
In international affairs Israel recently did the pragmatic thing. It apologized to Turkey - an apology Turkey demanded if relations between the two countries was to improve - for attacking a Turkish protest ship and killing several protesters on board. Israel swallowed its pride. This was truly a pragmatic move on the part of Israel because it helped enhance its standing in the global community. President Obama, who is on the cover of this issue, was the pragmatist behind the deal.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
Tibor Machan makes an unconvincing argument about the impracticality of pragmatism. Not everything is reducible to a single state of affairs as be is trying to do. The world is too complex for that. Some human affairs are conducive to pragmatic behaviour and others aren't. Generally it is in the larger sphere of human affairs where pragmatism is practical, such as in the concepts of open societies and democracy. Those are pragmatic institutions that are hard to argue against, where long held principles don't necessarily have to be abandoned but can coexist with others.
Pragmatism is from the Greek meaning 'a doing' - action. However, pragmatism in today’s usage denotes more the sense of practicality than action. So how did pragmatism come to mean practical from the original meaning of action? The idea of practicality comes from everyday practicing and experience, and one can’t have practice or experience without action or ‘a doing’ first. In other word, pragmatism doesn't come as an imposition but from experience and an understanding of what works.
It isn't surprising that the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in America because from its beginnings America was a nation of doers and plenty of action. And when it came to governance, America’s government was the first in the world to be openly active and engaging with its people, getting involved in nation and social building in a big way, through an activist legal and educational systems. The nation building and activism the American government adopted certainly reflected the spirit of what the Greeks meant by pragma.
Prior to the daily involvement of government in people's lives, like started in America, governments used to behave in a more metaphysical manner, letting the chips fall where they may. Societies were more divided and less just. Metaphysical governance wasn't very interested or active in social building, nor did it care. And it didn't strive to be mutually beneficial as pragmatism does. Pragmatism affords the distillation of truth from many sources.
Without pragmatism Democracy would be merely an idea and not an engaging activity.
I suggest Tibor Machan reexamine his ideas about pragmatism.
Pragmatism is from the Greek meaning 'a doing' - action. However, pragmatism in today’s usage denotes more the sense of practicality than action. So how did pragmatism come to mean practical from the original meaning of action? The idea of practicality comes from everyday practicing and experience, and one can’t have practice or experience without action or ‘a doing’ first. In other word, pragmatism doesn't come as an imposition but from experience and an understanding of what works.
It isn't surprising that the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in America because from its beginnings America was a nation of doers and plenty of action. And when it came to governance, America’s government was the first in the world to be openly active and engaging with its people, getting involved in nation and social building in a big way, through an activist legal and educational systems. The nation building and activism the American government adopted certainly reflected the spirit of what the Greeks meant by pragma.
Prior to the daily involvement of government in people's lives, like started in America, governments used to behave in a more metaphysical manner, letting the chips fall where they may. Societies were more divided and less just. Metaphysical governance wasn't very interested or active in social building, nor did it care. And it didn't strive to be mutually beneficial as pragmatism does. Pragmatism affords the distillation of truth from many sources.
Without pragmatism Democracy would be merely an idea and not an engaging activity.
I suggest Tibor Machan reexamine his ideas about pragmatism.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
Tibor Machan focuses on ethical pragmatism, saying that in practise it would't work. In doing so he is tossing out the redeeming and enhancing qualities of pragmatism, like having a second chance or not being destroyed by a single indiscretion like happened in the dark ages. In those days one would have been thrown in jail for life for stealing a piece of bread to feed a family or had a life destroyed by a foolish sexual encounter. Pragmatism takes into account and examines extenuating circumstances, thus expanding the scope of human cognition. Because pragmatism deals with dilemmas and contradictions it opens up issues for debate. The alternative shuts things down.
A cosmopolitan existence would be impossible without pragmatism.
A cosmopolitan existence would be impossible without pragmatism.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
In his article Impractical Pragmatism Tibor Machan focuses on ethical pragmatism. He insists that ethical pragmatism cannot work. But he didn't consider one ethical issue that is receiving the pragmatic treatment and responding to it, same-sex marriage.
Over the years America has become more pragmatic about gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage. This has not all come from a moral shift or a total abandonment of core values. It has come more from a sense of fairness and inclusion. More importantly, this pragmatism was born of it making economic sense. Business people and corporation are in support of the movement because gays and lesbians are good for business: they are creative, responsible and ideal consumers. Data also shows that people who live together in a union and share benefits as a couple, which same-sex marriages would extend, are healthier and less of a burden on the rest of society.
The economic argument may sounds crass but it does make pragmatic sense.
Over the years America has become more pragmatic about gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage. This has not all come from a moral shift or a total abandonment of core values. It has come more from a sense of fairness and inclusion. More importantly, this pragmatism was born of it making economic sense. Business people and corporation are in support of the movement because gays and lesbians are good for business: they are creative, responsible and ideal consumers. Data also shows that people who live together in a union and share benefits as a couple, which same-sex marriages would extend, are healthier and less of a burden on the rest of society.
The economic argument may sounds crass but it does make pragmatic sense.
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4360
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
why the hatred toward polygamists?
limiting marriage to two people violates the rights of polygamists...
-Imp
limiting marriage to two people violates the rights of polygamists...
-Imp
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
I still think that the author of Impractical Pragmatism didn't make a very convincing argument against pragmatism. He thinks that pragmatists believe that everything can be solved pragmatically, which isn't the case. Some issues are to explosive to be resolved in a pragmatic fashion. In such cases, like the abortion issue, what a pragmatist does is leave the issue alone and with time let it resolve itself, with minimal input. The author also seems to believe that pragmatism means anything goes, which isn't true at all. Pragmatists have moral standards and understand limitations, believe it or not. And that is what makes them so intelligent, because they understand both sides of the issue. Being a pragmatist involves using both sides of your brain to the fullest.
Barak Obama is on the cover of this issue of PN on public policy, for those who didn't notice. It is appropriate he is, being a pragmatist and pragmatism being a subjects of this issue. He is the 'Pragmatist-in-Chief'. (He is perhaps the greatest pragmatist America has ever had.) He is pictured with Plato, who doesn't seem to be a pragmatist, at least in the public sense. But when dealing with public policy one has to be pragmatic - it can't be avoided. Nevertheless, Plato was a pragmatist of sorts, but in favour of the State rather than the Public. Plato believed that everybody had their place and should stay in it, a very un-pragmatic attitude.
On the cover Plato his holding up a finger as though it being the fickle finger of fate. Perhaps the finger is pointing upwards as if to say "It Is Written". To a pragmatist like Obama nothing is finally written. If that were the case he would never have become president of the United States for it was once believed that a person of his race would never be president. But he did change his mind on something that was written. At first he did not support same-sex marriage but then came to pragmatically support it.
Nelson Mandela is another great pragmatist, as was Martin Luther King. And look how these two pragmatists have enhance public policy.
I think with this issue the publishers of PN can perhaps finally see the magazine in the White House.
Barak Obama is on the cover of this issue of PN on public policy, for those who didn't notice. It is appropriate he is, being a pragmatist and pragmatism being a subjects of this issue. He is the 'Pragmatist-in-Chief'. (He is perhaps the greatest pragmatist America has ever had.) He is pictured with Plato, who doesn't seem to be a pragmatist, at least in the public sense. But when dealing with public policy one has to be pragmatic - it can't be avoided. Nevertheless, Plato was a pragmatist of sorts, but in favour of the State rather than the Public. Plato believed that everybody had their place and should stay in it, a very un-pragmatic attitude.
On the cover Plato his holding up a finger as though it being the fickle finger of fate. Perhaps the finger is pointing upwards as if to say "It Is Written". To a pragmatist like Obama nothing is finally written. If that were the case he would never have become president of the United States for it was once believed that a person of his race would never be president. But he did change his mind on something that was written. At first he did not support same-sex marriage but then came to pragmatically support it.
Nelson Mandela is another great pragmatist, as was Martin Luther King. And look how these two pragmatists have enhance public policy.
I think with this issue the publishers of PN can perhaps finally see the magazine in the White House.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
I came across this statement made by a reviewer of “The Metaphysical Club” by Louis Menand, saying that it "agued that radical change could hardly be effected by pragmatists".
I am not sure that is good or bad. But I cringe at the thought of the radical changes metaphysics wrought in the past, like world wars, revolutions and sectarian violence. In contrast, pragmatism has not been so violent. Yet pragmatism has instigated its fair share of radical change in the world. Pragmatism has brought us open societies, democracy, capitalism and same-sex marriages.
From this vantage point pragmatism doesn't look so impractical.
I am not sure that is good or bad. But I cringe at the thought of the radical changes metaphysics wrought in the past, like world wars, revolutions and sectarian violence. In contrast, pragmatism has not been so violent. Yet pragmatism has instigated its fair share of radical change in the world. Pragmatism has brought us open societies, democracy, capitalism and same-sex marriages.
From this vantage point pragmatism doesn't look so impractical.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
As far as I know pragmatism has it's roots in logic. it is unfair to say 'it cannot work in practice' when by definition, it is based on practiced results. Reason is not so limited that you can only use it for a pragmatic analysis to guide action, but it would be foolish to want to. ineffable experiences give way to art and expression, becoming beauty to those who can empathize with the works created. and pragmatic logic is very useful to solve problems, albeit, not alone.
It would be wise to examine issues from as many angles as possible, and neither settle on any title to explain a whole, as titles so inefficiently express a whole, but instead, express some 'part'.
It would be wise to examine issues from as many angles as possible, and neither settle on any title to explain a whole, as titles so inefficiently express a whole, but instead, express some 'part'.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
Above I quoted this:
There is something to that statement. Consider the Middle East and the civil wars occurring there. This regions desperately needs radical change but pragmatism won't work there because that approach has never existed or been given a chance.
Above Tesla writes, "As far as I know pragmatism has it's roots in logic". Yes, pragmatism is rooted in logic, in reason, and in enlightenment. But in much of the Middle East, like in Syria, logic, reasoning and enlightenment have never existed in sufficient quantities to ignite the radical change needed. Hence, and instead, the use of bloody wars to bring about the radical social changes so desperately needed. War, not pragmatism, seems to be the language the region understands.
Now consider us in the West. We have learnt to use pragmatism to bring about radical social and political change. But we too had to learn this, to be pragmatic. For instance, in the twentieth century it took two world wars for us to learn how to do it. We had to go through two world wars to learn how to be pragmatic and sensible in forging radical change. But in the past we too used wars in order to radically change the stagnant, corrupt social orders that stood in the way of us becoming democracies and open societies. Unfortunately it is now the Middles East's turn.
.radical change could hardly be effected by pragmatists
There is something to that statement. Consider the Middle East and the civil wars occurring there. This regions desperately needs radical change but pragmatism won't work there because that approach has never existed or been given a chance.
Above Tesla writes, "As far as I know pragmatism has it's roots in logic". Yes, pragmatism is rooted in logic, in reason, and in enlightenment. But in much of the Middle East, like in Syria, logic, reasoning and enlightenment have never existed in sufficient quantities to ignite the radical change needed. Hence, and instead, the use of bloody wars to bring about the radical social changes so desperately needed. War, not pragmatism, seems to be the language the region understands.
Now consider us in the West. We have learnt to use pragmatism to bring about radical social and political change. But we too had to learn this, to be pragmatic. For instance, in the twentieth century it took two world wars for us to learn how to do it. We had to go through two world wars to learn how to be pragmatic and sensible in forging radical change. But in the past we too used wars in order to radically change the stagnant, corrupt social orders that stood in the way of us becoming democracies and open societies. Unfortunately it is now the Middles East's turn.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
The Middle East, even the world as a whole, will need social education built on formal educations to change. Radical changes happen when survival makes it absolutely necessary. The current migration crisis is making radical change necessary for those fleeing the wars. Their return could radically change the region if stability in the region allows the return before new generations make return unlikely. At least that's my belief.
Re: Impractical Pragmatism
Tesla,
On first reading your response I didn't think we were on the same page, that you missed my point about pragmatism.
Then I thought about your reference to education. Then I thought some more and realized that education was born of a pragmatism, of educating people in a practical sense so that they can live together in a socially cohesive way, so that they don't remain totally divisive in their diverse forms.
On first reading your response I didn't think we were on the same page, that you missed my point about pragmatism.
Then I thought about your reference to education. Then I thought some more and realized that education was born of a pragmatism, of educating people in a practical sense so that they can live together in a socially cohesive way, so that they don't remain totally divisive in their diverse forms.