I was reading The Bushwhacked Piano by Tom McGuane the other day and a character notes how the only things relevant to his current life that he learned in college were pipe smoking and pragmatism.
This got me wondering if I really understood pragmatism. I’ve read some James, but honestly, philisophical texts are pure Sominex to me. Like most people, I grasp the basics better when they are put into a situation, like The Stranger and existentialism.
So, can someone give me the basic lowdown on pragmatism in non-headachey terms?
This is not a plea for homework. Somehow I already finished college without mastering the world’s philosophies!
Well, I was going to link to some James, but you say you’ve read some… Yet, I don’t think you can get much less non-headachy when it comes to philosophy.
Let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we’re having an argument about the melting point of water. You claim ice melts at 273.15 K and I claim that you’re wrong, it’s 285.3 K. Everyone, regardless of their philosophical standpoint will, after a modicum of research, declare that you’re right and I’m wrong. The reason a pragmatist will provide is that claiming that ice melts at 285.3 K has practical negative consequences. Essentially, the statement is false because it prohibits you from making accurate predictions about when ice turns into liquid water.
Now that seems pretty obvious when applied to hard science, but I have found this approach extremely useful (ha!) when approaching moral, religious, political or metaphysical dilemnas.
