|
The Impracticability of
Pragmatism
by Glenn Woiceshyn
Dear Editor,
Re: "The Impracticality of Pragmatism"--Editorial--Nov/28/97--The Ottawa
Citizen
Your editorial was right -- pragmatism is impractical -- but it didn't sufficiently
explain why. Historically, pragmatism grew out of German metaphysical Idealism. The
philosopher Hegel rejected the realist idea that a physical world exists external
to our minds, one that obeys immutable causal laws, such as the law of gravity. This
Idealism lead to spinning ideas divorced from reality--so-called "pie in the
sky" notions that were impractical--such as communism. (Both Marxism and Nazism
were heavily influenced by Hegel.)
Certain early followers of Hegel, such as philosophers William James and John Dewey,
rebelled against this Idealism and founded pragmatism. Tragically, they accepted
Hegel's no-external-reality notion and, rather than reject irrational ideas (i.e.,
ideas divorced from reality), they rejected the very notion of being guided by ideas
or principles--even practical ones ( i.e., logically derived from reality). They
became subjectivists substituting feelings for truth. This explains today's widespread
notions of "what's true for you (or your tribe) is not true for me" or
"the majority is always right." This, in essence, is why pragmatism is
impractical.
This is also why political pragmatists, such as Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and most
politicians today, are unprincipled expedients trying to solve the latest crisis
without the guidance of long-range rational principles. Instead, they eschew principles
as "impractical" and resort to appeasement, compromise, pull peddling,
flip-flops, etc.--all in the name of "practicality." But without rational
principles as a guide to action, a politician is at the mercy of range-of-the-moment
feelings--their own or those of various pressure groups battling for special government
"favours" at others' expense. (See my article on National Unity published
in the Ottawa Citizen on Sept. 19, 1997.)
Unfortunately, this intellectual bankruptcy allows bad theories to take hold in politics
by default. Borrowing the editorial example of England versus France, if a majority
of French people feel that socialism is better than capitalism, then it must be "true"
for them according to pragmatism. (Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong!)
The editorial indicated that pragmatism sounds good in theory but is impractical.
This is possible only if one divorces one's theories from reality -- as liberals
consistently do. For a realist, a theory is practical if it is good, and good if
it is practical.
Sincerely,
Glenn Woiceshyn
© 1997 Glenn Woiceshyn. All rights reserved.
This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw. |
|
