H -°, L 22° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 4°“To the citizens of Wisconsin: Unless we want Wisconsin to become a permanent third-world state, we need to stop electing fanatically dedicated partisan ideologues of all stripes and start electing pragmatic problem solvers.”
This was former Chancellor John D. Wiley’s departing message for Wisconsinites. His derision of ideology and appeal to pragmatic “solutions” echoes the predominate view in our culture. From politicians to college professors to the so-called “man on the street,” pragmatism is almost universally accepted. It’s also possibly the single most destructive force in our culture.
Pragmatism is the view that there’s no such thing as objective truth. Truth is whatever happens to work, for the moment. A recent popular book arguing for pragmatism describes it this way: “Pragmatist thought begins from the premise that all knowledge is perspective and all realities are constantly in the process of changing and becoming something else.” Thus, truth is a matter of perspective, and reality is fleeting, never to be pinned down. Accordingly pragmatists scorn principles and worship flexibility, compromise and “doing what works.”
We can see pragmatism’s influence everywhere.
Politicians pledge to “put aside our differences” and adopt “middle-of-the-road” positions on every issue. As a result, it is nearly impossible to determine what a candidate actually believes or what he will do in office. The only consistent promise is his or her willingness to be flexible, cross party lines and work for unity.
Our foreign policy consists of denouncing our enemies as evil one day and dropping food packages on them the next. We send troops to topple one dictator while sending billions in aid to another.
Our mealy-mouthed politicians and neurotic foreign policy is a direct result of pragmatism’s grip on our culture. “Fight either/or thinking,” we’re told “the world isn’t black and white.”
Holding strong convictions of right and wrong, true or false is regarded as an obstacle to progress, while one’s ability to compromise is touted as the height of virtue. The battle for ideological control of our nation must stop, claims a recent editorial writer: “We need a few socialists and a few libertarians.”
Pragmatism rejects identifying basic principles behind these social systems and evaluating them accordingly. Regardless of the ideas involved, the mantra is “don’t go to extremes.” Whether one is an extreme advocate of freedom, or of slavery, both are smeared as “extremist.”
Pragmatism’s appeal derives from its claim of being practical. One can either be practical or idealistic it is widely believed, but not both. But pragmatism’s claim to practicality is a farce. Living successful, prosperous lives requires principles, abstract concepts and moral standards.
Doctors do not treat each patient as a unique case to be cured by trial and error; they apply the principles of medicine Success in life is achieved conceptually, not by staring at each new situation in isolation. Yet in the humanities, pragmatism is the norm.
College students are taught to avoid “egocentrism.” “Egocentrics,” according to a textbook “are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to everyone else’s. All of us are affected to some degree by egocentric biases.” In other words, the very fact that you think you’re right is evidence of bias. Do you judge your culture as superior to another? If so, you likely have a “socio-centric” bias.
To judge one’s own views or culture as superior to another and to be intolerant of ideas and actions one abhors is regarded as inherently biased, impractical and idealistic. Instead, we are taught to embrace multiculturalism and tolerance.
Imagine what the world would be like if giants like Galileo, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who fought for their interests, ideas and values had swallowed the poison of pragmatism. “Give me liberty or give me death!” That sounds a bit self-absorbed, doesn’t it?
By rejecting principle, absolute truths, moral standards and evaluation, pragmatism destroys man’s means of being practical. It leaves him helpless to understand the world the only way he can: conceptually.
Reality is not an amorphous, fleeting phenomenon — it is an unforgiving absolute. As such, it is crucial we come to know which principles are true and which are false. We must judge which actions are right and which are wrong. We must identify which social systems lead to prosperity and which lead to mass slaughter. We must define and understand the purpose of government, the principles required for economic prosperity and the moral righteousness of our actions.
This requires rejecting pragmatism in all its forms and adopting a principled, conceptual approach. It requires taking ideas seriously. Our lives literally depend on it. What could be more practical?
Jim Allard ([email protected]) is a graduate student in biological sciences.
IP hash: a1e07786
Bottomline it for us, Jim: McCain or Barry?
IP hash: b43eab93
That was garbage. Even President Bush, a purported free-market, small government republican, has recently used SOCIALISM to save our economy by buying stakes in thousands of private banks.
Jimbo, always be willing to do what works, despite your convictions.
IP hash: d743af18
Is it just me, or does this article read like a failed attempt at satire?
IP hash: 77487bea
This is probably the most rediculous BH piece Ive read in some time now; filled with inconsistencies.
Where does this article get off saying that we currently use a “pragmatic” approach, especially in regards to foreign policy? Its anything but pragmatic, its run by this nutzo Neo-conservative conception that we do in fact know the Truth and we are willing to fight and kill in order to spread our very un-pragmatic conception of the truth.
And the claim that there exists a clear and definitive dichotomy between idealism and practicality is infantile. Can we not be idealistic about where we can go as a people by using practical ideas? I am idealistic that we will get away from our divergence from pragmatism (something you fail to see for some reason) and become practical and rational to achieve a society I would label ideal.
I would go on but longer posts arent paid attention to…this piece is humorous.
IP hash: b3708b9f
I had a hard time reading this article because it dramatically misrepresents pragmatism. Pragmatism is not a rejection of absolute truth, but a recognition that there is no human mind which might comprehend it. I believe the author conflates this to mean that there is no real truth or principle, so we should “do what works.” For example:
�Pragmatist thought begins from the premise that all knowledge is perspective and all realities are constantly in the process of changing and becoming something else.�
DOES NOT EQUAL
Thus, truth is a matter of perspective, and reality is fleeting, never to be pinned down.
The quote says all KNOWLEDGE is perspective, not all truth is perspective. Pragmatism is a recognition that the ethereal concepts which are housed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not have exact counterparts when it comes to making legislation or policy decisions.
Perhaps the most damning aspect of the author’s delineation of the evils of pragmatism is found here:
“To judge one�s own views or culture as superior to another and to be intolerant of ideas and actions one abhors is regarded as inherently biased, impractical and idealistic.”
Simply put, it is true that intolerance of other viewpoints is untenable in a world filled with other people with other ideas. To be sure, some ideas are obnoxious or downright evil. But we represent the ideal of democratic government through crafting broad consensus while still allowing for even the most unpopular idea to be heard.
It might seem absurd, or even immoral, to allow bad ideas to survive. But this is not as absurd or immoral as committing oneself to a rigid personal doctrine which claims empirical certainty over What Is To Be Done. Such ideology gives rise to tyranny.
Pragmatism IS my principled, conceptual approach to politics as a student of philosphy, history, and policy. I advocate my beliefs while recognizing that I am imperfect, my ideas are imperfect, and my understanding of truth is imperfect. The approach recommended by the author would work fine…in a nation run by dictatorial fiat, not our nation of democratic law.
IP hash: edb4eb1f
Yawn, this article may have been interesting…100 years ago when the idea was new. Nice try Jim, I see the standards for Graduate school dont include “original ideas”
IP hash: ae7440f0
“Imagine what the world would be like if giants like Galileo, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who fought for their interests, ideas and values had swallowed the poison of pragmatism.”
Uh, they did swallow the “poison” of pragmatism. Galileo went back on his astronomical claims to avoid execution. Thomas Jefferson removed portions of the Declaration of Independence concerning slavery so that the document would actually be accepted. Had he not done that, the United States very likely would not exist today (and there still would have been slavery in the colonies). One of the most noted pragmatists in American history is Abraham Lincoln, who finally did abolish slavery, but in the process gave numerous concessions to his opponents, and by doing so he was able to achieve abolition without permanently tearing the United States apart. The world needs more Henry Clays, not fewer.
IP hash: f151ec33
Thanks for the responses.
Regarding 11:51: I agree completely that there’s no dichotomy between idealism and practicality. This was my point and main criticism of pragmatism. Pragmatism claims that there is a dichotomy and therefore rejects idealism.
Regarding 12:49: You write, “Pragmatism is not a rejection of absolute truth, but a recognition that there is no human mind which might comprehend it.”
This amounts to the same thing. “Truth” is the correspondence between one’s ideas and the facts of reality. If the human mind cannot comprehend facts, then it cannot know reality and there’s no use having principles. This is pragmatism.
You also write, “But this is not as absurd or immoral as committing oneself to a rigid personal doctrine which claims empirical certainty over What Is To Be Done. Such ideology gives rise to tyranny.”
If your personal doctrine doesn’t correspond to reality then, yes, it would be immoral. But once you discover what the truth is, it would be self-destructive NOT to commit yourself rigidly to a doctrine which upholds this truth.
If you discover gravity you should hold rigidly to the doctrine that jumping out a tenth-story window is bad.
There’s nothing tyrannical about this, unless you consider living within the dictates of reality tyrannical.
IP hash: e6513e6a
Jim,
I’ve read and enjoyed your article and could not agree more. Don’t let zeros get you down.
IP hash: 0939f10c
If you are a sociology major, take note.
(he’s generally right though.)