Unless you mean to exclude pragmatics like Dewey and James, in a pragmatic view. knowledge is a conceptual model that can be more or less USEFUL. — Joshs
You mentioned forms of philosophy reliant on truth propositional logic as not pragmatically meaningful, but I assume you would also include many Continental philosophers. — Joshs
There is a danger that ‘normal human beings’ becomes synonymous with ‘ human being who can understand the philosophy’. — Joshs
But the greatest works of continental philosophy, from Plato to Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel and Nietzsche, were initially and for the most part still to this day meaningful to only a small segment of the population. But such ‘useful’ philosophies became the basis for interpretations by mathematicians and scientists (Newton, Frege, Gauss, Heisenberg, Godel, Turing, Darwin, Freud) who produced models influenced by these ideas which in turn led to new technologies, therapies, sciences. So the usefulness doesn’t happen as a direct communication from abstract philosophy to ‘normal human beings’ , it happens in stages, by being translated into more and more pragmatically articulated versions over time, accessible to increasingly large segments of the population. — Joshs
Yes, it is a requirement, and some people treat it as an inconvenience: "I understand the problem, and I have a solution. Why should I be wasting my time on writing it down for the sake of bureaucracy?" Software engineers are free-spirited and they despise inefficient processes. A part of my job is to teach them to embrace this process, because I'm convinced that writing design docs benefits the author even more than the reader. — pfirefry
If you are interested in a serious discussion of epistemology that follows what you consider pragmatic, you can join Bob Ross and I here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 The first two pages of responses are primarily junk, but when Bob Ross joins, we have a serious discussion. — Philosophim
happen as a direct communication from abstract philosophy to ‘normal human beings’ , it happens in stages, by being translated into more and more pragmatically articulated versions over time, accessible to increasingly large segments of the population. The general concepts that led eventually to the computer you are using were first formulated by ‘useless’ philosophers 200 years ago. The concrete technology is just the final stage in a long process of the spread of an idea. As we speak there are a handful of philosophers generating the conceptual basis of what will constitute the next technological revolution 50 or 100 years from now. Only then will ‘normal human beings’ likely recognize its value, and only in a more narrowly engineered form. — Joshs
Some random reactions - I come from the reverse of engineering - community work - no maths, few solutions, unanswered questions and jagged edges. — Tom Storm
I guess for me everything needs to start with at least one presupposition, namely that truth or ultimately reality are likely inaccessible or imagined... I wonder if holding a pragmatic epistemology is more of a world view than a philosophy - not wanting to make too much of this, but a key question inherent in setting up one's philosophical orientation is how deep are we prepared to dive and why? — Tom Storm
I think all useful epistemology will employ pragmatism. — universeness
I would not call myself a pragmatist as it gives too much priority to the term. — universeness
but pragmatism has limited use when dealing with extreme emotional content such as hate, love, madness etc, yet these extreme emotions can produce 'eureka' moments. — universeness
Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work.
Horror, terror, ecstasy, wonder. I don't think pragmatism touches these yet many people experience such, every day. — universeness
Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything. — Ciceronianus
So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. — Ciceronianus
The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say). — Ciceronianus
I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven. — T Clark
Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work. — universeness
I think his broader point is about self-awareness. As Peterson and may others have mused, everyone tends to think of themselves as hypothetically opposing Hitler or being in the resistance if they found themselves in Nazi Germany. But the odds are you are more likely to be an active supporter, not a dissenter and much more likely a guard, not a liberator. That is the tragic dimension to human behavior and the self-awareness gap Peterson often attempts to highlight. — Tom Storm
I'd be interested in knowing more about the relationship between self-awareness and pragmatism. — Tom Storm
I strongly disagree. A pragmatic view never doubts the existence of or denies the value of human emotion. A pragmatic approach does lean toward actions that solve problems rather than satisfying strong feelings. Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse. Is there any philosophy that endorses that? Yes, I guess there probably are. They are not for me. — T Clark
Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse — T Clark
I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one? — T Clark
If you ask me what my goal is with philosophy, I'll say increasing my self-awareness. — T Clark
Running or fighting might be a better approach when raw facing hatred, dead on. — universeness
Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness
I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one? — T Clark
I agree, but self-awareness compared to what? How do we measure our improvement in self-awareness? How can we tell the difference between self-serving opinions and awareness? — Tom Storm
In what sense are running or fighting not pragmatic responses — T Clark
That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making. — T Clark
I've flagged you post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision." — T Clark
Is it not a pragmatic/sensible/logical act, to be aware of self and what your own values are? — universeness
I think he is trying to understand how the 'good' associated with Godliness measures up against a prison guard who helps facilitate the holocaust. His actions would be evil but his faith in god may still be true, valid and good. He may even truly believe he is doing his gods work. I think it is this area that Peterson is trying to take on. — universeness
Because they are mostly instinctive, there is often not enough time to be pragmatic. I don't think 'fight or flight' has much reason. You often reason about what happened after it's all over — universeness
Which decision did you consider 'not effective' in the two scenarios involving hate and anger that I gave? — universeness
For the nazis it was. The machine of destruction was pretty well worked out. Hatred my fiend... — HKpinsky
Keep trying. Try to be honest with yourself. Judge your results against the outside world and other people. Do the best you can. How's that? — T Clark
Hatred my fiend... — HKpinsky
Again, I don't see what this has to do with pragmatism — T Clark
Sorry, I lost track of the decisions you are talking about. — T Clark
When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in phenomenology — Tom Storm
I've flagged you post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision — T Clark
Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.