| | Pragmatism is a dead philosophical movement that peaked in the first half of the 20th century. Nevertheless, its influence drags on permeating our culture with serious, negative consequences. Pragmatism rejects all certainty, exactitude and universality. Ideas are regarded as only man-contrived tools and truths are only of transient validity.
This means no values, no principles, no standards, no concepts -- nothing long-range or objective is possible. In the Pragmatist's view fallibility is the defining epistemelogical characteristic of man. The standard for measuring any plan of action is necessarily specific to the immediate situation -- "did it work?". But without any objective nature of man to fulfill in the long run, "work" never means more to the Pragmatist than: "did it extinguish the immediate problem?".
Consequently, it is a thoroughly parasitic system that feeds off of other existing value systems it is unable to formulate itself. And, unable to devise objective, long-range goals, the pragmatist cannot project and act until a problem occurs, thence he lives from one problem to the next, and to the next, and so on. Richard Nixon was the non plus ultra paradigm of pragmatism, with his autobiography so appropriately titled: "My seven Crises". He was a man without a shred of scruples, because the moral and the good and the right and the true were for him only whatever got rid of the problem at hand for the duration of the increasingly short attention span of the pragmatic populace that elevated him to the office (you get what you pay for!).
Today, "pragmatic" equals "practical" in the vernacular, and it deviously profits from the positive connotations of that synonym. But something that is understood by an Objectivist to actually be, in the long run, immoral, can be considered moral by a pragmatist, merely because it makes the problem go away for the time being. The potentially hideous consequences down the road will just be yet another of life's crises.
To a pragmatist, whatever is practical in the short run is moral. To an Objectivist, only what is moral in the long run can be considered to be practical in the short run. That which is not moral in the long run can never be practical in any run -- that which is not moral is, by definition, contrary to one's own nature.
Hence, the pragmatists are nurturers of the mind-body fallacy in its "ideal (moral) v. practical" format.
Because pragmatists will feed off any value system without limitations, they are seldom consistently radical and tend to appear benign. That is partly why your sister has difficulty understanding the evil they practice. They always sell themselves as more moderate than the rest of the group they fall in with.
Nixon, the pragmatic conservative, initiated detente with communist China. Clinton, the equally scrupleless, pragmatic liberal, mirrored his position and tactics on the moderate left. Populists like Nader and Buchanan fill the role of pragmatic totalitarians. The Libertarian Party -- disdained by Ayn Rand for corrupting Objectivism with their pragmatism in order to appeal to a philosophically challenged American populace -- are the pragmatic laissez-faire capitalists.
Michael
|
|
