I grew up in a world in which Pragmatism was the philosophy that claims that the end justifies the means.

I’ve noticed recently that the term Pragmatism is more frequently used in a
way to convey “simple practicality” somewhat based on succinctness…
It seems like there has been a lexicon modification in which I have only recently become aware.

This is bewildering to me because not only do I crusade against the philosophy of Consequentialism/Pragmatism,
but I significantly apply Deontological Ethics and Occam's Razor to much of my life.
(philosophies which used to be in a juxtaposition of pragmatism can now be synonymously used)

Sorry about all of the philosophical Gobbledygook.

Merriam-Webster doesn’t exclude my understand of the the term,
but I would like to know if I’m in the minority in the way I used the word.

I don't know the etymology of the term, I certainly have heard it used both ways. Similar to "materialism". Philosophical materialism isn't the same as the way the word is generally used.

Having the word mean different things does make it difficult to address concerns about a world view.

Pragmatic means a person is dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Pragmatism is defined as...
1. a pragmatic attitude or policy.
2. PHILOSOPHY: an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

That's its literal definition. Of course that assumes common sense, which we all know is very uncommon commodity in humanity. It's not surprising that the meaning of the term has been corrupted by those who use it.

(06-24-2014 11:12 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Pragmatic means a person is dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Pragmatism is defined as...
1. a pragmatic attitude or policy.
2. PHILOSOPHY: an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

That's its literal definition. Of course that assumes common sense, which we all know is very uncommon commodity in humanity. It's not surprising that the meaning of the term has been corrupted by those who use it.

I have always viewed Practicality as being in consideration of values and morals, while Pragmatism,
as in Malcom X use of Jean-Paul Sartre’s “By any means necessary” can be at times void of values and morals.

To use pop culture as an example of pragmatism: The Blues Brothers film plot portrayed Jake and Elwood wreaking
havoc, breaking laws and causing destruction in order to save an orphanage owning $5,000 in property taxes.

Practicality and Pragmatism are synonymous. But few people know that.

The Etymology of the word “pragmatic” seems to
partly support my understanding of the word

Link.

I’m starting to think it’s similar to the the word “Bad”, depending on the vernacular, its meaning could be inverse.

Perhaps I’ll start using the term “Machiavellian” instead.

Just remember that Lord Acton said "Power corrupts..." ;-)

I don't know how the word has changed through the years, but I have always viewed it as a means to look at a topic or situation from a purely objective (however possible that is) view and make decisions based upon what is most practical. I guess an antonym of solipsistic, which I always interpreted as being a narrow way to view events and make decisions.

I think of pragmatism in a folksy sort of way as best explained by several old saws, namely: "when given a lemon, make lemonade" and "ya plays the hand ya was dealt" or " ya dance with who brung ya."

Pragmatism is attempting to achieve the best outcome given the existing environment.

As such, a pragmatist is the exact opposite of an ideologue, who unwaveringly seeks to achieve that which may not be achievable.

(06-24-2014 07:02 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I think of pragmatism in a folksy sort of way as best explained by several old saws, namely: "when given a lemon, make lemonade" and "ya plays the hand ya was dealt" or " ya dance with who brung ya."

Pragmatism is attempting to achieve the best outcome given the existing environment.

As such, a pragmatist is the exact opposite of an ideologue, who unwaveringly seeks to achieve that which may not be achievable.

I think “You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” is a more appropriate old saw.

A pragmatist is best made when unethical and immoral means aren’t off the table.

(06-24-2014 03:49 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  I don't know how the word has changed through the years, but I have always viewed it as a means to look at a topic or situation from a purely objective (however possible that is) view and make decisions based upon what is most practical. I guess an antonym of solipsistic, which I always interpreted as being a narrow way to view events and make decisions.

yes, this is what I've taken it to mean. An ability to make decisions by removing irrational emotion and just looking at the facts (at least how you perceive them)

Thanks guys, for the input.

I see that my problem with how I use the word is based on my narrow perception
that Pragmatism is ultimately nefarious. Since pragmatic means can be, and often
are reckless I naturally “in an unpragmatic way” have an aversion to the process.

I first became interested in the “philosophy” of Pragmatism in 1997 after reading an
article about the subject in American Heritage Magazine. Of which I found the link and
reread it last night, it’s a longer more tedious read than I had remembered. After doing
some more research I came to the conclusion that Pragmatism, unlike the teachings in
Sun Tsu book The Art of War, encourages the use of unethical means.

We frequently see pragmatism used in modern day politics, in the classic
”it’s not the validity of the allegation, but rather the seriousness of the accusation” .

I personally believe that man-made global warming is the
“contrived pragmatic means” to the “ends” of redistribution of wealth.

(06-24-2014 09:41 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 07:02 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I think of pragmatism in a folksy sort of way as best explained by several old saws, namely: "when given a lemon, make lemonade" and "ya plays the hand ya was dealt" or " ya dance with who brung ya."

Pragmatism is attempting to achieve the best outcome given the existing environment.

As such, a pragmatist is the exact opposite of an ideologue, who unwaveringly seeks to achieve that which may not be achievable.

I think “You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” is a more appropriate old saw.

A pragmatist is best made when unethical and immoral means aren’t off the table.

I disagree and I'll use a few political examples that support my working definition.

LBJ was not pragmatic when he championed the Civil Rights legislation.

Bill Clinton wasn't being pragmatic when he offered Hilarycare but was being pragmatic when he worked with the Republican Congress on welfare reform.

George W. was being pragmatic when he worked with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind and other Dems on Medicare Prescription coverage.

(06-25-2014 08:25 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:41 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 07:02 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I think of pragmatism in a folksy sort of way as best explained by several old saws, namely: "when given a lemon, make lemonade" and "ya plays the hand ya was dealt" or " ya dance with who brung ya."

Pragmatism is attempting to achieve the best outcome given the existing environment.

As such, a pragmatist is the exact opposite of an ideologue, who unwaveringly seeks to achieve that which may not be achievable.

I think “You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” is a more appropriate old saw.

A pragmatist is best made when unethical and immoral means aren’t off the table.

I disagree and I'll use a few political examples that support my working definition.

LBJ was not pragmatic when he championed the Civil Rights legislation.

Bill Clinton wasn't being pragmatic when he offered Hilarycare but was being pragmatic when he worked with the Republican Congress on welfare reform.

George W. was being pragmatic when he worked with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind and other Dems on Medicare Prescription coverage.

I accept that I’m much too cynical about the process.
While the majority find the pragmatic method downright wholesome.
I’m comfortable in the simple assumption that all pork barrel spending is unscrupulous pragmatism.

I believe, particularly when it comes to politics that “collateral damage” is tolerable by the pragmatist.

I also begrudgingly recognize that politics is a game of poker in which the participants would find themselves
in a weaker position if they played their hand with sincerity. My real concern is when pragmatism becomes
the standard tool of everyday life... I think that the elevated divorce rate is partially due to men and women
being advantageously pragmatic during the courtship phase… It becomes a means to a fleeting end.

Pork Barrel spending is not Pragmatism. Neither is collateral damage. Both are forms of wastage, in the name of some cause. ideal or casus belli.

Pragmatism is dealing with the aftermath of such stupidity. Accepting what can't be changed, and moving on.

And politics, IMO, is merely a polite way of lying to people, who accept it because they can't face the truth, or aren't smart enough to see it for themselves. So they take the politically correct approach, and swallow it whole.

And the divorce rate is merely a symptom of today's throw away society. We use something for a while, get tired of it, and then throw it away without a thought. We use to do this with trash, and now we've added mementos and families to our garbage pile. Walking away when difficulties arise is far easier than working through problems for today's society.

I may have inadvertently created a message board paradox.
It seems in order to defend pragmatism, one has to use pragmatic methods to do so.

So I gather that I’m the only person in this discussion that views the
application of “any means necessary” as pragmatic and generally unethical?

I believe you gather correctly.

Although my gut feeling tells me I’m not wrong about this, I’ll concede to the
notion that you guys are more informed about this matter than I am and in the
future I'll use a better suited term for my crusading against the justification of misconduct.

I’ll post an interesting story about a road race in which several years ago my Wife read
about in a running magazine. I feel it illustrates the quagmire of pragmatic measures.

Not long into the start of the race, the lead runner created quite a large gap between him and the
rest of the field, a couple hundred yards even, never once relinquishing the lead, but as he rounded
the last street corner before going into the home stretch, he noticed other runners in front of him.

Turns out the he was the only participant in the entire race that ran the actual course, apparently the second
group of runners some distance behind him took the wrong race route, one that made their trek to the finish
line considerably shorter... every runner behind the wayward second pacing group took the same wrong route.

After a bit of confusion the race judges/organizers thought it prudent to not award the only runner to follow
the actual course with first place and disqualifying the rest of the field, but rather validate the incorrect route
and issuing the finishing order and prizes base on those times, thus disqualifying the one guy that did it right.

(06-25-2014 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  And politics, IMO, is merely a polite way of lying to people, who accept it because they can't face the truth, or aren't smart enough to see it for themselves. So they take the politically correct approach, and swallow it whole.

And the divorce rate is merely a symptom of today's throw away society. We use something for a while, get tired of it, and then throw it away without a thought. We use to do this with trash, and now we've added mementos and families to our garbage pile. Walking away when difficulties arise is far easier than working through problems for today's society.

your best post

I'm glad you approve.

"There are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any inequity. All out of a kind of humdrum, everyday badness. Not the really high, creative loathsomeness of the great sinners, but a sort of mass-produced darkness of the soul. Sin, you might say, without a trace of originality. They accept evil not because they say yes, but because they don't say no.”
- Terry Pratchett