themusic says that "
Pragmatism, for all its intellectual history, is used today to justify much that is
conservative or reactionary ideology."
Well, I'd modify that slightly: I'd say that the
word "
pragmatism" is
invoked to justify
conservative or reactionary ideology, but it's mostly just
rhetoric. The problem is that "
pragmatism" is misunderstood to signify not "whatever works", but rather "that which
conservative/
reactionary ideologues tend to advocate", or more specifically "that which at first glance seems kinda
mean and heartless and self-centered".
Circular reasoning, anyone?
Sure, sometimes being
mean and heartless and self-centered is "what works", but is it wise
define it as "what works", to declare as an
axiom that this is "what works"?
Problem number two is that "
idealism" has been defined, just as blindly and
axiomatically, to signify "that which
liberal and/or
left-wing ideologues tend to advocate".
IMHO it'd be a lot clearer to define "
idealism" as "that which is
impractical or
unrealistic, with a side-order of
reductionism".
Well, if there's anything more
reductive,
impractical and
unrealistic than a
blind faith in "
rational self-interest"
1, I've yet to see it. The same goes for most other
free market theology (not to mention all other forms of
political and religious theology); it's just one long list of simple sure-fire solutions to
staggeringly complex problems. They disregard the complexities of human nature almost as blithely as
Marx did. Yeah, sure, the
unseen hand is going to fix the environment, put an end to
the business cycle (?!),
make everybody rich, and end war in our time
2 3.
Right.
1 "
Man is a rationalizing animal", as they say; I'll believe the "self-interest" part, but when you start claiming that people are rational often enough for it to be
statistically significant, I'll just have to ask you to
put down the bong. Even if it were common (which is arguable; see
plonk plonk above), hell, even if it were
universal, only a
glassy-eyed idealist of the first water would assume that it would necessarily "
save the world" or anything like that.
2 All extravagant
snake oil claims guaranteed genuine, no foolin'.
3 s/
unseen hand/
government/g and then back again at 8-10
Hz until it starts to blur, for those who are missing the point. The point is that the two sets of claims are identical.
plonk plonk: You were doing fine about
rational self-interest until you hit that gaping
non sequitur at the end.
Why would it "
save the world"? How? The fact that you
like self-interest and that "
rationality" has positive connotations? Are you familiar with "
the tragedy of the commons"? No, the only thing that keeps us going is
irrational self-interest, the conviction that we should
do the right thing just because it's the damn right thing to do, even
when we can be certain that the wrong thing will never come back to bite us. It's called "
civilization". What's left of it.