Pragmatism
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm
Pragmatism
Pragmatism
There is only one value that can save us and our natural world for posterity. Pragmatism.
Those who believe in an afterlife may believe their reward is beyond this world, but if they destroy this world there will be no future ‘souls’ be saved, for an unproved vanity.
Pragmatism has no values beyond itself, other than is involved in a more or less stable global society which may be vicious or otherwise. And if vicious then it must intrinsically be some form of tyranny. If it is not vicious then it must involve values that take it away from tyranny to either an Altruism of some sort, or to Anarchistic autonomy of some extent. Those latter values relate to the relationship between people, but more particularly between tangible communities which together form the world. If the world persists as a body of antagonistic communities comprising ‘tyrannies’, ‘altruism’, and individualistic autonomy; then the world itself is still in a state of chaos. As such the relationships between communities [states or nations] that wish to survive involves the ethic of chaos which may be imagined.
There is only one value that can save us and our natural world for posterity. Pragmatism.
Those who believe in an afterlife may believe their reward is beyond this world, but if they destroy this world there will be no future ‘souls’ be saved, for an unproved vanity.
Pragmatism has no values beyond itself, other than is involved in a more or less stable global society which may be vicious or otherwise. And if vicious then it must intrinsically be some form of tyranny. If it is not vicious then it must involve values that take it away from tyranny to either an Altruism of some sort, or to Anarchistic autonomy of some extent. Those latter values relate to the relationship between people, but more particularly between tangible communities which together form the world. If the world persists as a body of antagonistic communities comprising ‘tyrannies’, ‘altruism’, and individualistic autonomy; then the world itself is still in a state of chaos. As such the relationships between communities [states or nations] that wish to survive involves the ethic of chaos which may be imagined.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pragmatism
Who is, "us?" If it's the majority of mankind, it's not worth saving.RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:20 am There is only one value that can save us and our natural world for posterity.
One can only hope, but, alas, it is doubtful mankind is going away, but it sure wouldn't be missed if it did. The, "natural world," (and the few true human beings who are not part of any, "us,") will get along just fine, as they always have, with or without mankind and its posterity.
Re: Pragmatism
So are you part of the "majority" or are you one of the select worth saving?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:16 pmWho is, "us?" If it's the majority of mankind, it's not worth saving.RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:20 am There is only one value that can save us and our natural world for posterity.
One can only hope, but, alas, it is doubtful mankind is going away, but it sure wouldn't be missed if it did. The, "natural world," (and the few true human beings who are not part of any, "us,") will get along just fine, as they always have, with or without mankind and its posterity.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pragmatism
lEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:40 amSo are you part of the "majority" or are you one of the select worth saving?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:16 pmWho is, "us?" If it's the majority of mankind, it's not worth saving.RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:20 am There is only one value that can save us and our natural world for posterity.
One can only hope, but, alas, it is doubtful mankind is going away, but it sure wouldn't be missed if it did. The, "natural world," (and the few true human beings who are not part of any, "us,") will get along just fine, as they always have, with or without mankind and its posterity.
Those who will survive do not need, "saving," and know who they are. No one else needs to know.
If you are one, you will know when all others are gone. If you are not one, it won't matter to you.
-
- Posts: 12634
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Pragmatism
Rather than 'pragmatism' I believe the only one value is 'being_human-proper' i.e. we need to grasp, understand and exercise what is to be a human_being in essence which in other words is aka 'philosophy-proper'.RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:20 am Pragmatism
There is only one value that can save us and our natural world for posterity. Pragmatism.
...
Pragmatism is just another dimension and tool of philosophy-proper. I would not say 'pragmatism' is the best tool, rather we must use whatever tools [philosophical] available at our disposal to optimize within the constraints of any current situation.
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that – very broadly – understands knowing the world as inseparable from agency within it. This general idea has attracted a remarkably rich and at times contrary range of interpretations, including: that all philosophical concepts should be tested via scientific experimentation, that a claim is true if and only if it is useful (relatedly: if a philosophical theory does not contribute directly to social progress then it is not worth much), that experience consists in transacting with rather than representing nature, that articulate language rests on a deep bed of shared human practices that can never be fully ‘made explicit’.
The core of pragmatism as Peirce originally conceived it was the Pragmatic Maxim, a rule for clarifying the meaning of hypotheses by tracing their ‘practical consequences’ – their implications for experience in specific situations. For Peirce and James, a key application of the Maxim was clarifying the concept of truth. This produced a distinctive epistemological outlook: a fallibilist, anti-Cartesian explication of the norms that govern inquiry. Within that broad outlook, though, early pragmatists split significantly over questions of realism broadly conceived – essentially, whether pragmatism should conceive itself as a scientific philosophy holding monism about truth (following Peirce), or a more broad-based alethic pluralism (following James and Dewey).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/
Re: Pragmatism
I cannot see pragmatism as a value. I think it is a valuable and effective method of achieving some goal. A pragmatist will change his ideological preferences as and when they no longer are fit for purpose.
Re: Pragmatism
And what determines those who survive considering many "stupid" people reproduce?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:59 amlEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:40 amSo are you part of the "majority" or are you one of the select worth saving?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:16 pm
Who is, "us?" If it's the majority of mankind, it's not worth saving.
One can only hope, but, alas, it is doubtful mankind is going away, but it sure wouldn't be missed if it did. The, "natural world," (and the few true human beings who are not part of any, "us,") will get along just fine, as they always have, with or without mankind and its posterity.
Those who will survive do not need, "saving," and know who they are. No one else needs to know.
If you are one, you will know when all others are gone. If you are not one, it won't matter to you.
Re: Pragmatism
The contradiction of pragmatism is its foundation in "usefulness". What is useful is that which is a means to an end however to "what" end there is no answer except a vague term of "happiness" therefore the means is vague as well. Pragmatism is thus subjective in nature as what is useful to one person, say a piece of clay for a sculpture, is not useful to another, say the same piece of clay. This nature of "usefulness" is grounded in the perspective of the observer.
Re: Pragmatism
Yes, that is a problem, except perhaps in wartime when nearly everybody knows who the enemy is, and who the good people are.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:50 pmThe contradiction of pragmatism is its foundation in "usefulness". What is useful is that which is a means to an end however to "what" end there is no answer except a vague term of "happiness" therefore the means is vague as well. Pragmatism is thus subjective in nature as what is useful to one person, say a piece of clay for a sculpture, is not useful to another, say the same piece of clay. This nature of "usefulness" is grounded in the perspective of the observer.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pragmatism
Reality! One either conforms to the requirements of reality and the real requirements if their own nature or dies.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:47 pmAnd what determines those who survive considering many "stupid" people reproduce?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:59 aml
Those who will survive do not need, "saving," and know who they are. No one else needs to know.
If you are one, you will know when all others are gone. If you are not one, it won't matter to you.
Re: Pragmatism
Then people who are deemed as unfit by some are deemed fit by reality. People who fit this category are the "majority" as they are currently surviving.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:09 pmReality! One either conforms to the requirements of reality and the real requirements if their own nature or dies.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:47 pmAnd what determines those who survive considering many "stupid" people reproduce?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:59 am l
Those who will survive do not need, "saving," and know who they are. No one else needs to know.
If you are one, you will know when all others are gone. If you are not one, it won't matter to you.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pragmatism
For now!Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:47 pmThen people who are deemed as unfit by some are deemed fit by reality. People who fit this category are the "majority" as they are currently surviving.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:09 pmReality! One either conforms to the requirements of reality and the real requirements if their own nature or dies.
Re: Pragmatism
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:02 amFor now!Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:47 pmThen people who are deemed as unfit by some are deemed fit by reality. People who fit this category are the "majority" as they are currently surviving.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:09 pm
Reality! One either conforms to the requirements of reality and the real requirements if their own nature or dies.
1. All majorities and minorities pass away and another majority and minority takes their place. Survivability is a paradox as one is seeking that which fades; survivability eventually results in zero for everyone therefore everyone is grounded as "unfit" at one point or another.
2. Dually "now" is what justifies the past and the future as the past and future are grounded in "now". The survivability of a future majority are built off of a past majority; thus those deemed unfit by some inevitability are a brick in the wall for those who survive in the future.
3. There will always be a relative majority thus a relative percentage of people will always be deemed unfit if "majority" is the standard for deeming what is fit and unfit. (However your argument may be implied as not using "majority" as the standard for who is fit or unfit, so point 3 may be negated.)