(Successor site to CoPhilosophy, 2011-2020)
A collaborative search for wisdom, at Middle Tennessee State University and beyond... "The pluralistic form takes for me a stronger hold on reality than any other philosophy I know of, being essentially a social philosophy, a philosophy of 'co'"-William James
When most people think of something being true, what they are likely thinking about is whether or not that thing is factual. Facts exist independently of our beliefs, generally meaning that no matter how we perceive it to be, the fact remains as it exists. One good example would be that water boils at 100 degrees celsius. Statements like these can be considered "scientific truths" in a way as they are proved true via methods of experimentation and observation of the world as it exists; however, there is a clear delineation between pragmatic truth and scientific truth / facts.
From the School of Evolutionary Herbalism; short clip of scientific vs. pragmatic truth
For an idea to be considered "pragmatically truthful" to William James, it has to contain some account of usefulness and practicality in real world applications. John Kaag, in SSHM, boils this idea down to "truth in ideas is their power to work." For example, while it is factual that water boils at 100 degree celsius, we can believe it to be truthful because it consistently proves true in various applications, including scientific experiments, cooking, and engineering principles. Thus, we can isolate truth as its own concept based on human experience and validation.
"The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property in it. Truthhappens to an idea. Itbecomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its validation." - Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking
Pragmatic truths aren't always accepted so broadly, however. Many critics argue that pragmatism is not useful in its own right against the social and moral institutions of modern society. The insistence on "cash value", as Columbia University writes, materializes ideas as "mere expediency", or convenient. Some say that pragmatism falls short when generating new solutions in response to systems that threaten those ideas. Overall, pragmatism relies on a credibility that the pragmatist has not necessarily earned, which could potentially create a bad precedent where virtually any idea thought practical would be warranted.
Historically, pragmatists agree that an idea is truthful due to its practicality; however, there have been several fascinating iterations to this philosophy that I believe are worth considering.
William James' philosophy primarily focuses on the practical applications in the immediate future. An idea is truthful if it can work during our time and can be proven thus. C.S. Pierce believes otherwise.
C.S. Pierce: Truth at End of Inquiry
According to Pierce, an idea can only be considered true at a theoretical end of inquiry, where it's quite literally impossible to improve upon it. He says that true beliefs generally gain acceptance over time by withstanding further inquiry. This idea is thus more objective than James' reasoning, stating that a truth cements itself in the long-term as a final consensus. Since there can be no more improving or questioning upon an idea at that time, Pierce would argue that idea cannot possibly be untrue.
John Dewey: Truth as a Tool in Experimentation
The other philosophers would likely agree that true ideas are generally tools for use in our daily lives, but Dewey grounds pragmatic truths to a stricter experimental application. As a mix of James and Pierce, Dewey claims that truth and falsity are reserved for judgments or settled outcome of inquiry. Thus, Dewey ends up being a little more context-sensitive than Pierce's theoretical end of time while being more grounded than James' truth in metaphysical practicality.
All three pragmatic theories of truth rely on the abstract relationship between an idea and a fact, making them overlap in their obscurity. Plus, certain ideas that can be classified as true under one definition is likely also defined as true in other definitions. Practicality can "bend time" and stretch between the present day and a theoretical end.
Generally, I would subscribe to the Pierce definition of truth under the implication that truth is constantly subjective and changing. I cannot perceive the end of inquiry in which our perception of an idea no longer being practical matters, but I can understand the belief that an idea that is unable to withstand questioning cannot be deemed true. The issue with this, however, is that I don't necessarily think it matters whose philosophy you attribute your logic to. Pragmatism at its core is based on the presumption that an idea can be true and/or is true for someone, otherwise there would be no discussion. My take is that I believe an idea to be true if its practicality can be proved for somebody in some context at some time. For the time that it remains useful, it is then true. Earlier, I discussed how this can arise as a problem in many critics eyes, and I do believe that practicality for an individual can be dangerous if it leads to harm of another. I would be willing to make an exception to my own understanding, as anything deemed practical used to harm another person would no longer remain practical for the greatest number possible.
From PhilosophyToons: James' Pragmatic Theory of Truth
In the SSHM chapter 5, John Kaag referenced a term that I had only heard before in the context of cooking. On page 115, he defines zest as the "feeling of a keen passion", the key to human meaning according to James. Zest is an innate feeling that you cannot describe but can vividly imagine. Kaag explains that he doesn't believe he's ever felt this desire to experience or pursue something so intently that it overcomes the actual end result. The thrill of the process is, in a way, the zest of life.
When I read this excerpt, I was thoroughly intrigued. I wanted to know what it meant to be zestful, to search meaning in something that wasn't part of the end result. Every time I have ever travelled, I wasn't thinking about the plane ride or the drive but the destination. I realized that when I visited Paris a couple of years ago with a school group, part of what made the exploration of the city fun was the act of exploring with a fun group, not the things that I saw. It's funny how hearing a random word like zest in this context can change so much about how I see value in atelic activities.
Zest may not always be construed in this context, however. Some positive psychologists might boil zest down to a simple energy or enthusiasm for life. Such an example can be found here. I think this is too general of a definition for zest, as it can mean something much more existential. Zest is not just passion but a passion for something more.
Zest was one of WJ’s favorite words, and, interestingly, also one of Bertrand Russell’s in his “Conquest of Happiness”… but who knew It was one of Christian Dior’s too!
Zest was one of WJ’s favorite words, and, interestingly, also one of Bertrand Russell’s in his “Conquest of Happiness”… but who knew It was one of Christian Dior’s too!
ReplyDelete