Consequences of Pragmatism - Literature review Example

Consequences of Pragmatism Introduction Various circumstances can change a person and influence their perception about life and the surrounding them. People mostly act at the prompt of circumstances and consider the various factors in their environment before making decisions. The author of this book tries to explain certain philosophical aspects that determine human actions and propose solutions from different schools of thought such as the Platonic school of thought and the realist school of thought. His focus however is in the pragmatist school of thought. The author bases his arguments on the pragmatist theory about the truth. Pragmatists posit that certain acts are good to perform but nothing makes them so. Pragmatists believe that we should not ask questions about truth and goodness because there is no such thing as truth or goodness. They believe that circumstances that determine the goodness or truth in something. True to this, everyone has different judgments and beliefs that determine their actions therefore it becomes difficult to give a comfortable stand about truth and goodness. This is to mean that determining whether something is true or what is right depends squarely on human judgment (Rorty, 1982: 1-5) They believe that the conscious acquisition of a belief is praiseworthy but only under certain circumstances. Pragmatists think that the best thing is not to practice what philosophy says. They believe that when something is true it does not help to think about Truth or to think about Goodness when an act is good. They also believe that when something is rational one does not have to think about Rationality. The pragmatists are actually saying that people do not follow such strict rule when coming up with decisions. They do not have to follow the philosophy of Truth, Goodness or Rationality but rather their instincts and the surrounding circumstances. Philosophers such as Plato believe that human beings were entitled to self-respect merely by the fact that they had one foot in space and the other on earth. Some philosophers believe that space-time is the only Reality that exists therefore truth can only be in correspondence to that Reality. The philosophers attach so much correspondence and determinants of decisions that do not work in practical terms. Ideally, whether one is entitled to self-respect or not depends entirely on their self-concept and how they carry out themselves. We are the real reason people judge us the way they do therefore we create our own self-concept (Rorty, 1982: 6-10). Pragmatists also hold that true sentences are not true since they correspond to reality and there is no need to worry about the sort of reality. Similarly, one should not worry once they have determined what they want. True to this, people are meant to be independent minded and it is incumbent upon everyone acting only on what they believe in but within the confines of societal norms. Platonists share the positivist stance that knowledge is power and that true sentences work since they correspond to the actual state of things and goes in line with the Moral law. Here, the Platonists contend that there is a silent law called Moral law that determines human actions and beliefs and which humans should follow. Kant argues that language helps us form a tertium quid between Subject and Object and it is not just a picture of reality but part of human behavior. As such, people utter words as a way of coping with their environments. One can use language to criticize and increase them just as one can use exercise to develop and strengthen their bodies. Human beings are often judged by their words and actions as well. People should be careful on how they use language because one cannot take back their words once they come out. As such, people should measure their words carefully in order to fit into society (Rorty, 1982: 11-14). The author writes that is impossible to step out of our skins and compare ourselves from other people. Human beings are diverse and distinct at the same time. Christians believe that we are created in the image and likeness of God but everyone has their own destiny. As such, everyone is distinct and incomparable with another. According to Pierce, one of the major pragmatists, man makes and when some words mean nothing it is because man has made them mean so. He continues to say that the words and signs that human beings use not only define their thought but also their entire being. Wittgenstein says, it is only in language that one can mean something by something. True to this, human attitudes evolve certain ideas into meaning and can use their words to either build or destroy. People should know how to solve their problems without pointing fingers. Pragmatists believe that the inability to think of something that counts to either confirm or disconfirm a solution is the reason we put the problem aside. Nagel stresses therefore that the fact that some problems are unsolvable does not mean they are unreal. Ideally, all human beings face problems at some point in their lives and it is incumbent upon them to face their problems in order to move on with their lives well (Rorty, 1982: 18-22). Pragmatists believe in “correspondence of reality” where no notion of the truth makes sense if we achieve everything we want by making false assertions and failing to “correspond” to something. This is true because human beings cannot avoid reality even in their decision-making. There is no pragmatic difference between the nature of truth and the test of truth and that the test of truth is not a comparison with reality. The author relates that some intuitions do not reveal one’s upbringing but rather the vocabularies of enlightenment scientists, Homeric warriors, as well as French literary critics. Education and apse experiences have shaped peoples rationality and alignment to truth or falsehood. This means that the more people get enlightened the more their perception about life changes. Nagel argues that in terms of moral luck, one is only susceptible to blame or praise if they are under control of their actions. To him everything results from a combined influence of factors that are either antecedent or posterior to action and are not within the individual’s control. Agreeably, everything happens due to the influence of a plethora of factors and sometimes we judge people without considering such factors. This leads to poor moral luck but people should be in control of their action to avoid such moral luck. The pragmatic attitude is that there is no deeper truth about Freedom of the Will and that people are morally responsible for what their peers do. The author front different ways of solving problems one of them is solving the problem without really facing it (Rorty, 1982: 20-26). For one, every individual today is entitled to act within his or her own free will as stipulated in the internationally accepted Bill of Rights. Secondly, in law and in practice, every individual is responsible for their own actions therefore nobody accounts for the actions of their peers. The pragmatist belief that people are morally responsible for their peers’ actions only works in a communist society and not the individualistic society we live in today. Malcolm Gladwell, the English-Canadian journalist argues about how successful people rise to many advantages whether deserved, not deserved, earned or just attained by luck. He uses five main ideas, skill, relevance effort, and timing, to explain this argument. This idea relates to Rorty's idea about the mind having a philosophical view of knowledge. Rorty accounts of Kant’s theory of knowledge where he says that knowledge is composed of intuitions and concepts of the mind, which emanate from immediate representations of objects in the world. This is true because as Gladwell puts it that knowledge is acquired from the skills through interaction of several objects in the world. The current situation in Miami incurred a lot of change in me. The poor economic growth, economic structure, public services in people’s lives and population resources and environment, being the factors happening in the country have affected my way of thinking and thus to incur success needs to begin from the mind, to accept the current state in Miami and to come up with the best business, favorable to all citizens. Conclusion The author tries to justify human actions and explain the reasons behind such actions using the philosophies of Truth, Goodness, Reality, and Moral law. Ideally, there is no definite way to account for human actions even in psychology meaning that the theories about human actions are mere assumptions. People should be in control of their actions at an individual level. Similarly, people should base their actions within the moral confines of society. Better still, people should be independent minded and learn how to fit into society at the same time. Work cited Richard Rorty. Consequences of Pragmatism. Published by the University of Minnesota Press, 1982. Read More