For some time I have dubbed myself a ‘theoretical idealist, but a practical realist’. But at the same time, I am a very staunch denouncer of pragmatism. I was thinking more on the differences between ‘practical realism’ and ‘pragmatism’ lately and finally hit on a succinct way to describe the difference.
When I say that of myself, what I mean is that I can conceive of the ‘best’ course of action or the ‘best’ possible result in any circumstance, but that I also understand the nature of reality. Reality is such that not only are some results not possible, but in some cases, some courses of action are either not available or not worth pursuing when faced with the potential for success.
When I refer to pragmatism, specifically in my condemnations of it, what I refer to is the practice of placing the most worthiness or value in courses of action that are the likeliest to succeed and/or to produce a desired result. More often than not, ‘likeliest’ also entails, the ‘easiest’ course or the one requiring the least effort to accomplish. It materializes through cliches such as “the ends justifies the means” and “picking the lesser of two evils” and is often referred to as ‘acting out of expedience’. Pragmatism is rampant in both the behaviors of our politicians and in the votes of those electing them, so it is often a subject for me when speaking on politics, as well as many other areas of life where it appears.
The reason I find a problem with pragmatism is that most people oversimplify situations. The term ‘lesser of two evils’ is a prime example of this. In most cases where this phrase is applied, two alternatives do not constitute the entire pool of choices. Instead, the ‘two’ refers to the ‘two’ pragmatic, or most-likely/easiest choices. The less likely choices are disregarded out of expedience, and often become a self-fulfilling prophecy since the pragmatic never pursue them in the first place — especially in populist arenas like democratic elections or assemblies.
The main and most outstanding difference between this form of pragmatism and what I refer to as ‘practical realism’ is that realism requires taking all possible or available options into account. Acting in this way, one might use pragmatic-like criteria to determine their actions (picking the lesser evil from a given list of alternatives) but ONLY when no other alternatives exist. In contrast, the pragmatist ignores or otherwise disregards the difficult or unlikely choices in favor of the easy or likely ones.
Besides being bad philosophy, this pragmatic approach to decision making is lazy, cowardly and irresponsible. If a better alternative exists, you should pursue the better alternative in ALL CASES. This does not mean that some aspects of pragmatic thinking might help you determine what is the ‘best’ alternative, but it means that you must rank likeliness as secondary to what is proper, good and right whenever considering a course of action.
“If you have standards that you wish to live by, by all means live up to them and demand the same from others around you. To do otherwise is to be disingenuous to yourself, to others and to those standards you hold.” – Scott Webster Wood
Another added thought to this, and it would play into my concepts of contingent liability when it comes to wrong doing. This is especially pertinent when it comes to involvement in activities that require the input of others (such as elections). If a chosen course of action has a likelihood to fail, not because of any action you might take but because of the choices of others which you consider incorrect, non-optimal or just plain wrong, that should not be a premise for changing your own decision making. If doing the right thing will ultimately fail because others do not share your view on what constitutes ‘right’, it is their wrong doing and the best you can do is to try to enlighten them as to a better way of thinking and thereby acting.
Dear Wild Webster,
Am I correct in presuming you will be voting for the U.S. presidential candidate who supports your views vs possibly the two who are on the ballot? Is your favorite candidate Gary Johnson (share only if you desire)? I like Gary Johnson’s views, however, when I discovered he was not doing well or likely to be elected, I was able to choose another contender who I am comfortable with. Regrettably he may not become the candidate who will be opposing O’bama in the election. If not, I will choose the “lesser of two evils.” What does that make me? A pragmatist or a practical realist? I’d like to think a practical realist.
P.S. – like your quote: “If you have standards that you wish to live by, by all means live up to them and demand the same from others around you. To do otherwise is to be disingenuous to yourself, to others and to those standards you hold.” – Scott Webster Wood
Arlene
Gary Johnson is part of my motivation for thinking about this subject again and therefore a contributor to inspiring this post. I was thinking I might be able to support Ron Paul, but the more I learn about him the more he starts to set off my skeeze alarms. He appears to be just as much of a wet-noodle pragmatist as the other two. (the Salamander and Obama-lite = Gingrich and Romney)
Sure, RP says the right things, and occasionally fights for the right things, but when he’s put under pressure, he caves just like any other vote-mongering politico. Just look at the newsletter scandal. Did you catch my facebook comment the other day about the press release from his campaign advisor following the foot-stepping incident involving the Ron Paul supporter and the Gingrich campaign assistants? They actually had the audacity to say that the “They say the culture of an organization is a reflection of its top executive.”
All I could say was ‘wow…. pot, kettle, black!!!’
“Metaphysics tells man, fundamentally, where he is. According to pragmatism, man lives in a reality that ‘seems only to be making itself valid and to still be incomplete (else why its ceaseless changing?)’ (James 120). In a reality that’s ‘still incomplete’ nothing is absolute. If the nature of existence is not absolute, then the nature of entities and the operation of physical laws must be continually changing, too. Such a plastic reality possesses no fundamental form, no definite order – no identity; therefore, it can’t be known.
“The skepticism inherent in pragmatism’s metaphysics is reinforced in its epistemology. Epistemology tells man, fundamentally, how he knows where he is. If existence is unknowable, though, man cannot know that. Consequently, said Dewey, knowledge cannot be ‘a disclosure of reality [and] the business of thought is not to conform to or reproduce the characters possessed by objects’ (qtd. in Peikoff, Ominous Parallels 127).
“By its acceptance of skepticism, pragmatism explicitly rejects the concept of objectivity, accepting, instead, the notion that subject and object are ‘the self-same piece of experience’ (James 103). Concepts – ideas – therefore, are not abstractions of facts but, according to pragmatism, representations of beliefs, i.e., products of faith. By denying the concept of objectivity, pragmatism also rejects the concept of truth, making ‘truth…a property of the idea [not] something mysteriously connected with the object known’ (Ibid xvi).
Therefore, the business of thought, under pragmatism, becomes the task of molding ‘the raw data of immediately felt experience’ (James qtd. in Cremin 107) into beliefs, which then becomes dogma disguised as knowledge. The result is pure subjectivism, which pragmatism justifies on the basis of expediency: ‘The true is only the expedient in a way of our thinking….’ (James vii), with expediency being a euphemism for feelings, impulses, desires – i.e., whim.
“Whim lies at the base of pragmatism’s epistemology, justifying its subjectivism, not only in thought, but also in action: ‘the right is only the expedient in a way of our behaving’ (Ibid vii). It is through the force of action that pragmatism seeks to vindicate its subjectivism, i.e., to prove that beliefs, which are held true in faith, can be – through the expediency of action – made true in fact. In modern pragmatic parlance, truth is actualized; in James’ lingo: ‘Truth happens…It [truth] becomes true, is made true by events…’ (vi), because ‘[f]or the feeling [i.e., belief] to be cognitive in the specific sense …it must…create a reality outside of it to correspond to its intrinsic quality….’ [emphasis added] (James 6).
“However, the consequences may be that an action fails. In that case new beliefs must be constructed, followed by new action. ‘[A]djustment…is a continuous process,’ said Dewey (Creative Intelligence 12). But while beliefs may change, whim – and its corollary, faith – remain pragmatism’s absolutes. In answer to the question of whose whim, James said, essentially, the individual’s; Dewey said, society’s (Peikoff, OP 130).
“Pragmatism can be summed up in one sentence: Act first; think later – if at all.”
– “The Worm In The Apple: Pragmatism and the Purpose of Contemporary American Education” (c)1997
CITED
Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education. 1961 New York: Knopf, 1962.
Dewey, John. “A Recovery of Philosophy.” Creative Intelligence: Essays in the Pragmatic Attitude. New York: Holt and Company, 1917. 3-69.
James, William. The Meaning of Truth. 1909 New York: Greenwood Press, 1968.
ahh, wordpress sorts them in reverse order apparently. Thus your prior (latter) comment now makes sense. Explanations like this one tend to over complicate and obfuscate though as they zoom past most people’s “need to know”. I prefer the more succinct ‘in lay terms’ approach that applies more to the ‘practical’ ways people might see such reasoning occurring around them every day.
Gee, Scott, I thought you’d find plenty of ammo in the excerpt from my monography to Modern ed.
Guess not.
I don’t know what you are referring to.
PS. Most folks have no idea what you mean when you speak of pragmatism. I thought it might be fruitful to fill in the blanks.
huh??
from the third paragraph:
” what I refer to is the practice of placing the most worthiness or value in courses of action that are the likeliest to succeed and/or to produce a desired result. More often than not, ‘likeliest’ also entails, the ‘easiest’ course or the one requiring the least effort to accomplish. It materializes through cliches such as “the ends justifies the means” and “picking the lesser of two evils” and is often referred to as ‘acting out of expedience’.”
Interesting way to put it though, as a twist on subjectivism. “you can’t know because shit changes” – that’s a good one. That’s like saying I can’t possibly know that was a Ford Mustang that drove by because it was moving at the time.