• Jim Grossmann
    Thanks for telling me about Pierce. :-) Good to know you've got a handle on pragmatism, whichever one of you you are! :-)
  • Pfhorrest
    If I were to ask you to defend libertarian socialism...BitconnectCarlos

    I'm kind of going off-topic in my own thread / getting ahead of the game here, but for some reason this question just popped back into my head again and I wanted to give kind of a response to it.

    The way I get to libertarian socialism from a pragmatic grounding isn't by starting with the question "is this the best political system?" but with much more general questions like "What do we mean by 'better'? And what is a political system supposed to do?" and tackle those in a pragmatic way. As we'll see in more detail in the later essays on these topics, I first address what prescriptive questions are practically asking for, then later what criteria are practicable ones by which to judge the answers to those questions, then what is a practical way of applying those criteria, and (glossing over all of that that will be covered later) end up with a liberal hedonistic altruism as the most pragmatic way of figuring out answers to prescriptive questions; of figuring out what to do. A political system is supposed to tell who has prescriptive authority, and from the "liberal" part of the aforementioned system it follows that nobody has prescriptive authority: in other words, philosophical anarchism.

    But even the briefest reflection on the practical implementation of anarchism shows that to keep people from exercising prescriptive authority they don't rightfully have requires a general degree of equality, which is where the socialist aspect comes from. How exactly to keep people generally equal, so they can be free of each other's unwarranted prescriptive authority, without in the process exercising such authority oneself, is a question that leaves the domain of philosophy and enters the domain of a more applied ethical science (as I'll call them later), like political science, where case studies etc are applicable. The goal of libertarian socialism is a philosophical result, reached a priori with only regard for the practical ends that are in mind -- what are we trying to do, and what is a logically entailed sub-goal required to do that -- but how to get libertarian socialism is a scientific question, to be answered a posteriori.
  • Douglas Alan
    I haven't had time yet to dive into your book, but I agree with those who say that you should remove any Latin from the title of your book. I think it would just annoy most potential readers rather than entice them.

    I suppose the reason for this is that you seem to be implying, "Look! Look! I'm as smart and as important as Newton! Or at least Wittgenstein." And most people will just roll their eyes at that implicit statement.

  • Pfhorrest
    That makes me sad. I'm very attached to the "Codex" title, having been working on this project under that name for almost a decade and a half now.

    It's meant (along with the cover design) to be eye-catching to a lay audience who may not be familiar with philosophy: stark black book with gold writing and symbols and a weird name, followed by a subtitle with large "philosophy" to tell you quickly what the topic of it is about.

    If I did away with the "Codex" part I'd probably do away with everything before "Philosophy" and leave it just "Philosophy: From the Meaning of Words to the Meaning of Life". That part of the subtitle is only a very recent invention... like last month recent.

    I would hope that anyone who would read so far as the introduction wouldn't think I'm trying to sound as important as any big-name figures, as I feel like I'm very self-deprecating there, looking back with shame on the younger version of me who dreamed that maybe some day I would be.

    That self-deprecation isn't an act either; I'm very... I want to say "ashamed" but that's not quite the right word, nor is "embarrassed"... something vaguely opposite of "proud"... of this work. Like it's really far too little far to late, it makes me look bad to have spent so long producing so little, and I maybe I ought never have begun it. But it's been my "life's work" for most of my adult life, and to abandon it completely feels like just giving up on life, which is something I'm struggling quite hard not to do these days.

    And I've felt similarly about other major projects I've worked on, and though it might have taken over two decades, at least one of those has developed something of a fandom, some people who are glad I did it and think it was worthwhile to do, so I cautiously hold a tiny bit of hope -- so tiny I feel bad even admitting it -- that maybe this one might someday too.
  • Douglas Alan

    I don't know if "codex" is too pretentious. It may be Latin, but it's also English. On the other hand, "quarentis" doesn't mean anything to me, but I can tell it's Latin, and hence it comes across to me as an attempt to appear more educated than I am.

  • Pfhorrest
    I just realized that I forgot to ask for one rather important piece of feedback, which thankfully has not applied to the five essay thus far, but will be important to ask about on the other seventeen still to come:

    - Are there any subtopics I have neglected to cover?

    I've added that to the OP of this thread now, and will include it in the OP of future threads as well.
  • bert1
    I like the cover. Looks like it was wrestled from a Lich and you're about to level up big time after reading it.
  • Pfhorrest
    Hahah, thanks :)
  • Pfhorrest
    Tonight I made a pretty major reorganization of the start of this whole project. I moved the Metaphilosophy essay to be first, and then the essay on my general philosophy of Commensurablism to come after that, before the four Against essays. I cleaned everything up to make sense of the new order, and also expanded significantly on the Definition section of Metaphilosophy, adding a section about philosophy's relation to sophistry as a counterpart to its relation to religion (roughly correlating with my stances against nihilism and fideism).

    I also realized that at some point in this version of the project I had lost the use of the term "Analytic Pragmatism" for my metaphilosophy, which is why "A Pragmatic Analysis" is part of the title. I think perhaps part of that was because I was unhappy with the word "Analytic" in there, as I mean for it to be sort of the opposite of "Pragmatic", as in concerned with language and ideas in the abstract, rather than practical action. But I can't think of a better alternative, and I'd appreciate some help if anyone can lend it.

    The problem is that:

    Analytic is already the opposite of synthetic.

    Abstract is already the opposite of concrete.

    Idealistic is already the opposite of materialistic.

    ________ is the opposite of pragmatic, but not in a pejorative way, just a way that means something like analytic/abstract/idealistic?

    ("Theoretic" occurs to me, but elsewhere I pair that with "Strategic", so I don't want to reuse that here too).
  • Mww
  • BitconnectCarlos
    ________ is the opposite of pragmatic, but not in a pejorative way, just a way that means something like analytic/abstract/idealistic?

    ("Theoretic" occurs to me, but elsewhere I pair that with "Strategic", so I don't want to reuse that here too).

    Personally, I would use theoretic as an opposite of pragmatic. I would never pair theoretic and strategic as opposites. The opposite of strategic would be, if I had to think of something, unthinking or reflexive (meaning - acting on reflexes) or short-term thinking or impulsive maybe. Honestly, I know it's boring, but unstrategic or poorly thought out work well here.

    Good strategy often involves months and months of theoretical planning - take military plans.
  • Pfhorrest
    Thanks for the idea, but that doesn't really seem the right fit. Analytic philosophy is juxtaposed to speculative philosophy, for instance, and the meaning I'm looking for it more like "analytic", though of course I'm trying to replace that word in this instance.

    I don't mean I juxtapose theoretic and strategic as opposite approaches to the same thing, but rather as parallels in different things. Theory is about explaining how things happen, strategy is about planning how to make them happen; one is about beliefs, the other is about intentions. They're both equally well thought-out, but in different domains, and in that way both of them are equally pragmatic, but also similarly... abstract? Analytic? Whatever the word I'm looking for here is.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.