...and add that which is uniquely your own."

!This quote is from the character Chiron in the animated Netflix show "Blood of Zeus"!<

An effective and essential capture of the spirit of pragmatism.

In the Encyclopedia brittanica says that there is a connection between irrationalism and pragmatism:

irrationalism began to explore the biological and subconscious roots of experience. Pragmatism, existentialism, and vitalism (or “life philosophy”) all arose as expressions of this expanded view of human life and thought.

For Arthur Schopenhauer, a typical 19th-century irrationalist, voluntarism expressed the essence of reality—a blind, purposeless will permeating all existence. If mind, then, is an emergent from mute biological process, it is natural to conclude, as the pragmatists did, that it evolved as an instrument for practical adjustment—not as an organ for the rational plumbing of metaphysics. Charles Sanders Peirce and William James thus argued that ideas are to be assessed not in terms of logic but in terms of their practical results when put to the test of action.

I just want to confirm if this is true??...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/irrationalism

Do we have a pragmatist approach on god or the gods do we have evidence, also are all pragmatists theist, agnostic or atheist?

Do we have a pragmatist approach on free will and evidence for either free will or determinism?

Source: From Theory to Practice: Exploring Stoic Pragmatism for a Life of Resilience and Significance, MASTER’S THESIS IN PHILOSOPHY, by Max Giezen (Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2023), page: 35.

A general pragmatist attitude emerges from the combined readings of Peirce, James, and Dewey. It values practicality and experience as the basis for forming beliefs, aligning them with empirical facts and objective reality. Scientific inquiry and empirical approaches are advocated, fostering an open, flexible, and ever-evolving mindset. The philosophers prioritize practical consequences and human benefit, emphasizing the integration of theory and practice for growth.

Truth is understood as a social construct, shared through practice and validated through social interaction. They urge the pursuit of continuous personal and societal development, using ideas for the betterment of humanity. Environments and experiences conducive to continuous learning are encouraged, along with the responsibility to contribute valuable output to society.

This pragmatist attitude takes a dynamic and experiential approach to the search for truth, grounded in practicality, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of positive outcomes. It embraces the evolving nature of knowledge, acknowledges fallibility, and encourages a collective journey toward a better understanding of truth. Through this mindset, individuals engage in the active exploration and application of ideas, contributing to personal growth and societal progress.

​

This book is a misguided attempt at moral reasoning based on scientific facts. Lacking a philosophical framework that can establish connections between morality and science, the author relied on his own rather lenient intuition without realizing it. One might say that he is another victim who falls on false philosophical questions.

Sapolsky conceptualizes 'free will' as a governing element inside a body, free from physical laws, thereby qualifying it as supernatural. This intuitive definition is not inherently wrong, albeit not that useful in some philosophical views (I'll come back to this later). He devoted half of the book rigorously disputing against the existence of such a supernatural free will, of which there are many useful scientific insights. This is a view that is already readily embraced by all naturalists by definition - for whom the whole universe is governed by physical law and "natural." And for antinaturalists, it's doubtful that any amount of empirical evidence will change their mind.

What is more problematic is when the book ventures to analyze the moral implications of the nonexistence of such supernatural free will. Had Sapolsky maintained his naturalist rigor, he would have discerned the absence of an established naturalist grounding for morality as well (i.e. moral naturalism). If one rejects the whole notion of free will due to the lack of empirical evidence substantiating its existence, he would have no choice but to reject the whole notion of morality on the same ground. This would render any moral proclamations meaningless, of which the book contains an abundance.

If one wants to reason in morality with rigor, they must start with a solid philosophical foundation rather than just their own casual day-to-day moral thinking. One of the first philosophical questions the author should've asked himself might be how morality holds significance without empirical evidence substantiating its existence. Unfortunately, his lack of awareness in this area is disappointing, sometimes to the point of frustration.

Thus, the book treats the two main subjects, free will and morality with completely different attitudes - free will with rigorous naturalist principles and morality with lenient personal intuitions. Upon such an uneven footing, the moral belief system it aims to build can’t help to be incoherent. Take the statement "Individuals do not deserve anything because they have no free will." from the book as an example. The book only defined the term "free will" rigorously. What defines an "individual"? As Saposky mentioned earlier in detail, it is rather careless to think that there is a single coherent mind within a body. If there is no such a coherent mind, what defines an individual? Then what is the basis for the concept "deserve"? How does it presuppose a supernatural free will? For the aforementioned statement to be consistent, these questions need to be answered firmly and coherently, a task for a rigorous philosophical framework. Otherwise, the freedom of interpretation will make such lenient statements read inconsistent and self-contradictory to many readers.

To end this review on a philosophically constructive note, the debate between free will and determinism can be handily resolved in philosophical paradigms in the line of pragmatism. Hereafter is my perspective, influenced by neopragmatism, especially that of Richard Rorty.

Concepts are not defined based on their truthfulness, i.e how accurately they represent reality, instead, they are defined based on practical usefulness for our goals. For example, the concept of “chair” is very useful for human beings that can sit, but imagine a world with plenty of chair shaped objects and yet no animals that can sit, the concept of “chair” would be useless and not exist in the first place. With the advancement of modern science, humans have been able to introduce more and more concepts such as cell, proton and black hole, that aim to represent elements in nature more accurately. But for neopragmatists, it's a mistake to take the accuracy of representation as the end. In fact scientists themselves, especially those who work in the micro dimensions, have learned to treat concepts as tools (their end is better prediction of measurements), unbothered by the lack of representations.

Similarly, the concept of “free will” existed long before modern science, it has been very useful for individuals and societies. We can try to clarify the definition of “free will” based on its origin and how it’s being used. But we do not need to redefine it in a way so that it represents something in nature - e.g. a neuron free from physical laws. Such a definition of free will is isolated and useless because it disconnects from the other concepts based on “free will” but yet to be also redefined to represent something in nature. Hence the whole conundrum between naturalist determinism and free will is a false question due to a misguided redefinition of the concept of free will (due to representationalism). It’s time to move on.

​

This review was posted on Goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5914350927?book_show_action=false

Will appreciate any feedback.

Technically, according to pure utilitarianism, it does not recognize any standard or value except for the purely ethical hedonistic outcome, which is happiness/pleasure/ecstasy minus pain/suffering experienced in reality. Anything below that is considered wasteful and mythical.

Therefore, according to the theory of pure utilitarianism, theoretically speaking, it would be ideal if someone could engage in sexual intercourse without leaving any traces or being discovered throughout their lifetime until they die. Technically, there would be no suffering, harm, or pain caused by this action, and thus, according to utilitarianism, it would not be unethical. In fact, the overall outcome of this action would be more positive utilitarianistically compared to not doing it, because engaging in sexual intercourse would bring happiness/pleasure/ecstasy to the person without causing any harm in reality.

Therefore, the overall utilitarian outcome of this action would be positive, introducing happiness to an individual, unlike not doing it, which would have a utilitarian outcome of zero. Bringing happiness and joy without causing harm or injury is morally commendable, and thus, technically, this action is morally commendable if those conditions and sufficient criteria are met.

Furthermore, according to the theory of pure utilitarianism, even technically speaking, if the same principle could be applied to the sexual exploitation of children and infants without causing any negative consequences or harm in reality, then this action would also be morally commendable utilitarianistically.

In reality, this action is morally commendable utilitarianistically because it brings joy, happiness, and pleasure to an individual without causing any harm or injury in reality. It is morally commendable and encouraged because not engaging in this action would have a utilitarian outcome of zero, without introducing happiness/joy to oneself or causing any harm or suffering.

Therefore, this action has a positive utilitarian outcome.

Based on this principle, if the conditions and sufficient criteria for marital infidelity (secret and discreet polygamy without any repercussions) are met, it becomes permissible and morally normal according to utilitarian ethics.

Greetings, fellow pragmatists,

I've been developing a foundational framework for ethics, or what I call the "Core Values of Life," that I believe aligns well with our pragmatic philosophy. The Core Values are Epistemic Rationality, Well-Being, Consciousness, and Agency, and I propose that they offer a practical, real-world foundation for ethical decision-making.

Here's a brief overview:

1. Epistemic Rationality: Upholding truth, logic, and evidence as the cornerstones of belief formation and decision-making.
2. Well-Being: Prioritizing the physical, mental, and emotional health of all conscious entities.
3. Consciousness: Acknowledging and respecting the value of awareness and subjective experiences in humans, animals, and potentially, artificial intelligence.
4. Agency: Recognizing and honoring the capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own choices.

These Core Values are designed to be interdependent, mutually reinforcing, and universally applicable. They aim to provide a practical framework to approach and solve real-world issues, from personal decision-making to societal structures, technological advancements, and beyond. I would also argue they are the criteria most people already subconciously/intuitively use to evaluate life and actions with.

I've also drafted a detailed document that discusses these Core Values in-depth. I invite you to give it a read and share your thoughts: Core Values of Life - A Foundation for Unified Ethics and AI Alignment

I'm eager to hear your perspectives on these Core Values, how they resonate with your understanding of pragmatism, and any suggestions you might have for refining this approach. Let's engage in a productive conversation and explore the practical consequences and real-world impacts of these values together.

Thank you for your time, and I'm looking forward to our discussion.

In my experience as a neuroscientist, I have come to understand validation as a form of self-constructed bias, and I think that pragmatists like William James struggled with defining it--using indefinite terms like 'verification' and 'usefulness' as they pertain to 'the Truth'.

So of course, time again for Kyle's useless hot take on pragmatism. 😭

To solve these persistent issues with semantic meaning and chaotic subjectivity, I think we can apply knowledge from physics, regarding the problem of the observer--which logically leads to the conclusion that Truth should be constructed through community coherence.

This doesn't mean we should abandon our own beliefs, but instead to treat them as part of a singularity that only we can sample from--we're just an infinitely-diverse series of constructs that construct reality by sharing our inner worlds with one another.

For example: when I ask you whether pizza tastes good, your brain engages first in verbal memory to identify the food and meaning of 'tastes good'--and then engages episodic, olifactory, and gustatory memory to recall feelings of taste and smell from previously stored contexts.

So, you remember eating pizza that one time and liking it, so 'your truth' is that pizza tastes good. But is it 'the Truth'?

To solve this, let's dig in deeper--say I ask you to rate pizza's taste on a scale from 1-10?

You say 7--but I ask again in a couple of days, and you say 6. Two days later, it's back to 7--two days after that, you say 8.

While your mean response is 7, your self-resampling contains natural variance--its measurement known as correspondence--and may be driven by the potential biases of historicity or social desirability, depending on whether you accurately recall your previous answer or decide to adjust it accordingly.

The point is: nobody can do this internal sampling except for you, and nobody else can know precisely 'how' you do it.

Nobody.

As neuroscientists, we can measure your cortical response to almost any stimulus--but to associate biological phenomena with any feeling, we still need to rely on a subjective measure of your perception. Instead of 'do you like pizza', think--'rate your pain'.

No matter what happens in life, you are your own referee to the way it makes you feel--and analogous to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, sampling and resampling your internal state runs into the problem of the observer, in that you cannot simultaneously observe and be observed.

Quantum mechanics tells us that validation is fundamentally about 'observation', but this necessarily divides the world into two parts: a part which is observed and a part which does the observing. The two cannot coexist without something being changed--chaos triggered, if you will.

To the pragmatists out there, I still have no idea if any of this thinking is useful--but I go back to the importance of community to harmonize all of our collective 'truths'. Since it seems we cannot reliably serve as our own referee, my view of a better society would be one that disengages from the idea of a singular, convergent Truth--and instead views reality as a harmonic resonance between individualism and collectivism.

This is further reflected by the contrasting truth conditions of propositions between coherence and correspondence theory--where coherence seeks Truth from other propositions, while correspondence seeks Truth as deterministic features of the world.

My view is that Truth exists as an infinite harmonic resonance between an oberver's internal world and the external world containing all observers. Fields upon fields, always collapsing upon themselves, but simultaneously generating new questions--a convergent Truth itself may be illusory.

I've been lately seeing this beautiful greyness, thanks y'all--just wondering if anyone else does, too 🙏

...or maybe I'm just a crazy neuroscientist, straying a bit too far from their field 😉

#dreaming

What was the religion of Charles Sanders Pierce and William james, which denomination these two went or belonged?

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "Ukrainian ambassador’s sensible and pragmatic suggestion." by u/REWRITETHIS
• ""What is Pragmatism and why is it useful?" | Interview with Professor Dr. John Kaag (Part 1 of 2) [27:56]" by u/xsat2234
• "Looking for someone to discuss my dissertation idea with" by u/GillesMalapert
• "Call for Applications: 100 grants - “Sao Paulo School of Advanced Science on Contemporary Logic, Rationality and Information”, February 2023 at CLE/Unicamp, Brazil" by u/Odd_Truth_2843
• "A question on hands on approach" by u/Littleappleho
• "Forum" by u/stataryus
• "Pragmatist road map" by u/Acceptable-Trade-132
• "Happy Cakeday, r/Pragmatism! Today you're 13" by u/AutoModerator
• "German economist Hans-Werner Sinn reflects on his past as a leftist during the '68 movement" by u/aVidus7677
• "Sell me on pragmatic ideals" by u/Dezthecondomboy

I’m new to this sub and noticed that it’s been 125 days since the last post, so I thought I’d jump in and create one!

Curious about the folks still around, goals, ideas, etc.

The US needs a LOT less tribalism and a lot more pragmatism!

Hi guys

Could you please explain to me the hands on pragmatist approach? or some references to it

Many thanks

To those who are new to pragmatism & pragmaticism this is a road map to every 'practical' philosophical position you want to find and explore and add to your knowledge and life.

Agnosticism (thomas henry huxley)

Theory of forms (Plato, Aristotle)

Pragmaticism (C.S. pierce)

Indirect realism (rene descartes, leibniz)

Sense data (g.e. moore, bertrand russell)

Ethical subjectivism (g.e. moore)

Logical atomism (bertrand russell, Wittgenstein)

Ontological pluralism (aristotle, descartes, moore, russell, william james)

Neutral Monism-Russellian monism (william james, bertrand russell, ernst mach)

Process philosophy (alfred north whitehead)

Immanent realism (john dun scottus)

Naturalism (Everyone)

Will (arthur schopenhaure, philip mainlander, julius bahnsen)

Transcendental realism (julius bahnsen)

Hello folks of r/pragmatism I’ll say, I don’t really agree with pragmatism, im a cynic in my philosophical beliefs, but I do believe its very important to understand the people you dont agree with as well if not better than your own beliefs! So please tell me everything there is to know on pragmatic philosophy, including what could possibly sell me on it! Thanks!

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "We call upon Reddit to take action against the rampant Coronavirus misinformation on their website." by u/rewq3r
• "Wait… So this is the kind of place where I’d say stuff like “It makes no sense to have political-parties because they’re just dividing adults & forcing them to play Red VS. Blue on the playground“?" by u/RandomPhail
• "This place need a rework" by u/TricksterBlade
• "I though this should belong here." by u/748ul4_R454
• "Could the Vice President usurp the Senate Majority Leader and force votes on legislation?" by u/rewq3r
• "Pragmatism by A.C Grayling, Miranda Fricker, Julian Baggini" by u/Trifle_Both
• "Pragmatic Usage of Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment" by u/rewq3r
• "Suggestions for the Community" by u/RadicalShiba
• "Happy Cakeday, r/Pragmatism! Today you're 12" by u/AutoModerator
• "How do you deal with "dialectical materialism" as a Pragmatist?"

How do you deal with "dialectical materialism" as a Pragmatist?

This theory simply calls us "subjective idealism", so do we have any counter argument against this?

For example, trying to defend "creative destruction" as a theory against it?