4 ms·

> It's just more dialectic materialism, where to even start a conversation with someone using it, you have to accept ontological premises that are necessarily a

> It's just more dialectic materialism, where to even start a conversation with someone using it, you have to accept ontological premises that are necessarily absurd. Imagine, if you will, two legislators arguing some bill in some parliament. The first is proposing some amendment to the bill which hinges on the existence of God. The second argues against it believing there is no God. The question is, can this be resolved? Let us assume they are both perfectly rational and exhibit impeccable integrity. Could they forward arguments to settle their dispute? Let's assume they are both scientific materialists. Can they investigate the material world to find evidence to support their positions and resolve their dispute? I don't know. If given infinite time, maybe? I honestly don't know. But as of now, it would seem that even given a complete willingness from either party to change their mind based on either argument or evidence we would still find ourselves at an impasse. So a third person shows up and says: It would seem that we are at an impasse, stuck in a kind of infinite loop. The cause of that infinite loop seems to be our inability to determine whether or not God exists. I suggest we set aside the question of whether or not God exists since what we really want to do here is pass legislation that makes every life better. After we finish up doing what we need to do, we can go down to the pub and have a really good discussion on the topic of the existence of God. But for now, in the interest of making progress on practical matters, I suggest we put the question aside and find other points to discuss. Miraculously the legislators agree. The first then puts forward the argument that the bill should pass if knowledge is primarily based in the material world. The other legislator scoffs and insists the bill should not pass because knowledge is primarily based within the conscious mind. So the third person says, we're at an impasse again. Somehow you have alighted on another premise that does not seem solvable through rational or empirical investigation. Our discussion will remain stuck until we disallow any premise that can't be either rationally or empirically determined. Both men lament: "this man is forcing us to accept an ontological premise that is absurd". I'm sorry that my attempt to explain pragmatism with a tortuous analogy is basically fodder for /r/badphilosophy

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
It seems like the proper solution would be to write the legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter whether knowledge is primarily based in the material world or the conscious mind.
- reggieband 5y ago
  My examples were chosen, of course, to be ridiculous. "Compromise" is a major point of the work done by the political philosophers who are identified with Pragmatism. The fact that the word compromise is so liberally used in modern political discourse is likely due to this influence. However, as is the case in some governments, the very idea that one would compromise with their enemies is an anathema. This is especially true if one side believes they are fighting against evil. It is also the case that some people are just trolls; bad actors delighting in bad faith. It also starts getting into game theory. For example, one could forward a totally absurd position that tries to force a "legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter ..." which is actually what I wanted in the first place. That is, demand that the opposition compromise with an absurd position in order to get what I really wanted all along. It could be argued that the polarization we see in modern politics is partly attributed to this. Pragmatism has a lot of problems which the philosophers have wrestled with. I suppose some of that complexity just goes away if you refuse to deal with indeterminate positions as a rule.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago

It seems like the proper solution would be to write the legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter whether knowledge is primarily based in the material world or the conscious mind.

reggieband 5y ago
My examples were chosen, of course, to be ridiculous. "Compromise" is a major point of the work done by the political philosophers who are identified with Pragmatism. The fact that the word compromise is so liberally used in modern political discourse is likely due to this influence. However, as is the case in some governments, the very idea that one would compromise with their enemies is an anathema. This is especially true if one side believes they are fighting against evil. It is also the case that some people are just trolls; bad actors delighting in bad faith. It also starts getting into game theory. For example, one could forward a totally absurd position that tries to force a "legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter ..." which is actually what I wanted in the first place. That is, demand that the opposition compromise with an absurd position in order to get what I really wanted all along. It could be argued that the polarization we see in modern politics is partly attributed to this. Pragmatism has a lot of problems which the philosophers have wrestled with. I suppose some of that complexity just goes away if you refuse to deal with indeterminate positions as a rule.