Unless you mean to exclude pragmatics like Dewey and James, in a pragmatic view. knowledge is a conceptual model that can be more or less USEFUL. — Joshs

Agreed.

You mentioned forms of philosophy reliant on truth propositional logic as not pragmatically meaningful, but I assume you would also include many Continental philosophers. — Joshs

I'm not familiar with the works of those philosophers in more than a casual way, so I can't comment specifically. Are there any philosophers other than the pragmatists who focus on the usefulness of knowledge rather than truth? Or, I guess, who define truth in terms of usefulness.

There is a danger that ‘normal human beings’ becomes synonymous with ‘ human being who can understand the philosophy’. — Joshs

That certainly isn't how I mean it. I mean Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber, John Doe, John Q. Public, Hugh G. Rection, Ben Dover, Harry P. Ness.

But the greatest works of continental philosophy, from Plato to Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel and Nietzsche, were initially and for the most part still to this day meaningful to only a small segment of the population. But such ‘useful’ philosophies became the basis for interpretations by mathematicians and scientists (Newton, Frege, Gauss, Heisenberg, Godel, Turing, Darwin, Freud) who produced models influenced by these ideas which in turn led to new technologies, therapies, sciences. So the usefulness doesn’t happen as a direct communication from abstract philosophy to ‘normal human beings’ , it happens in stages, by being translated into more and more pragmatically articulated versions over time, accessible to increasingly large segments of the population. — Joshs

Good point. How to respond... How about this - The scientific method is about as pragmatic as you can be. It was the model for the process I described in the opening post. I was never claiming that all the philosophers before Peirce and James weren't of value.

Good post.

Yes, it is a requirement, and some people treat it as an inconvenience: "I understand the problem, and I have a solution. Why should I be wasting my time on writing it down for the sake of bureaucracy?" Software engineers are free-spirited and they despise inefficient processes. A part of my job is to teach them to embrace this process, because I'm convinced that writing design docs benefits the author even more than the reader. — pfirefry

Civil engineers are not so different. Not so much free spirited, maybe, as lazy. If you want to be an artist, sometimes you have to clean the paint brushes.

If you are interested in a serious discussion of epistemology that follows what you consider pragmatic, you can join Bob Ross and I here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 The first two pages of responses are primarily junk, but when Bob Ross joins, we have a serious discussion.

If you are interested in a serious discussion of epistemology that follows what you consider pragmatic, you can join Bob Ross and I here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 The first two pages of responses are primarily junk, but when Bob Ross joins, we have a serious discussion. — Philosophim

I don't remember seeing it before. I'll take a look.

I think all useful epistemology will employ pragmatism. I would not call myself a pragmatist as it gives too much priority to the term. Its an important aspect of who I am but descriptors like humanist, socialist and athiest are more important.
Most fields of study, especially science based fields have well established methodologies.
Some are top down others are bottom up. One from software development is 'the waterfall method' or ADITDEM. A cyclical methodology.
Analyse-understand the problem
Design-plan a solution
Implement-code your solution
Test-test your solution, error report, return to previous stages depending on the nature of the errors found
Document-memorialise every stage of the project
Evaluate- assess the success/impact fo your solution (be pragmatic)
Maintenance-apply corrective, adaptive and perfective maintenance techniques.

ADITDEM can be used to deal with day to day problems an individual might face in their life and it has a pragmatism, built-in, in my opinion, but pragmatism has limited use when dealing with extreme emotional content such as hate, love, madness etc, yet these extreme emotions can produce 'eureka' moments.

Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work.
Horror, terror, ecstasy, wonder. I don't think pragmatism touches these yet many people experience such, every day.

happen as a direct communication from abstract philosophy to ‘normal human beings’ , it happens in stages, by being translated into more and more pragmatically articulated versions over time, accessible to increasingly large segments of the population. The general concepts that led eventually to the computer you are using were first formulated by ‘useless’ philosophers 200 years ago. The concrete technology is just the final stage in a long process of the spread of an idea. As we speak there are a handful of philosophers generating the conceptual basis of what will constitute the next technological revolution 50 or 100 years from now. Only then will ‘normal human beings’ likely recognize its value, and only in a more narrowly engineered form. — Joshs

That's the most elegantly written version of 'your model is flawed' I've read for a while.

Nicely put.

Some random reactions - I come from the reverse of engineering - community work - no maths, few solutions, unanswered questions and jagged edges. Nevertheless, I like your general drift. I guess for me everything needs to start with at least one presupposition, namely that truth or ultimately reality are likely inaccessible or imagined. But I do have a sense about what can help me to manage my environment and this appears to be measurable and evidence based and can generally be shared by a community.

To answer Josh's general point, we are all essentially dependent on the creativity, meaning and perspectives made by others and Christ only knows how deep this goes? Do we care? Some philosophy considers unpacking this to be a most significant nature of enquiry. I wonder if holding a pragmatic epistemology is more of a world view than a philosophy - not wanting to make too much of this, but a key question inherent in setting up one's philosophical orientation is how deep are we prepared to dive and why?

Some random reactions - I come from the reverse of engineering - community work - no maths, few solutions, unanswered questions and jagged edges. — Tom Storm

Engineers tend to be pragmatists, both because it's required for the job and because engineering tends to attract people with a predisposition. That being said, I don't think pragmatism's reach is in any way limited to such technical issues. I used an engineering example because it is something concrete I am very familiar with.

I guess for me everything needs to start with at least one presupposition, namely that truth or ultimately reality are likely inaccessible or imagined... I wonder if holding a pragmatic epistemology is more of a world view than a philosophy - not wanting to make too much of this, but a key question inherent in setting up one's philosophical orientation is how deep are we prepared to dive and why? — Tom Storm

As you know, I have a strong interest in Taoism, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about the ineffable. I don't see that, or any other presupposition, as being in conflict with a pragmatic way of seeing things.

World view vs. philosophy? I'm not sure I know the difference. I think pragmatism is as much a full-fledged philosophy as anything thought up by Kant, Plato, or any of those other old guys. I admit, when you get into some of the more esoteric subjects, the pragmatic response might be "who cares?" But it's a very philosophical "who cares." If a pragmatic way of thinking tends to avoid "deep dives," maybe that says something about the value of diving that deep.

Dewey famously wrote that we only really begin to think when we encounter a problem, broadly defined as a question raised in the course of life or situation we find dissatisfying and wish to alter. He called the methods by which we successfully resolve problems "inquiry" which would include the scientific method and logic (Russell, who thought the only real logic was what he wrote of, found this objectionable). Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything.

So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. The problem defines the ends in view--what is to be resolved, and why we wish to resolve it. It also defines the circumstances and suggests the method by which a resolution may be reached.

The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say).

I think all useful epistemology will employ pragmatism. — universeness

Sure, but to me, much of what calls itself epistemology is not useful at all. Exhibit A - justified true belief. Exhibit B - the Gettier problems.

I would not call myself a pragmatist as it gives too much priority to the term. — universeness

I try to hedge my bets on that. As you can see in the opening post, I said "I call myself a pragmatist." I don't like labels, but I don't want to look like I'm afraid to take the rap.

but pragmatism has limited use when dealing with extreme emotional content such as hate, love, madness etc, yet these extreme emotions can produce 'eureka' moments. — universeness

I strongly disagree. A pragmatic view never doubts the existence of or denies the value of human emotion. A pragmatic approach does lean toward actions that solve problems rather than satisfying strong feelings. Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse. Is there any philosophy that endorses that? Yes, I guess there probably are. They are not for me.

Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work.
Horror, terror, ecstasy, wonder. I don't think pragmatism touches these yet many people experience such, every day. — universeness

I'm not a big fan of Jordan Peterson, and I'm not really sure what he was trying to say. A death camp guard loving their work seems like a really bad example. Pragmatists can be horrified and terrified. It's not how they feel that's different, it's what they think you should do about it.

Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything. — Ciceronianus

You make it hard to respond, since I agree with everything you say. Philosophy's fascination with Decartes and doubt are one of the things that set me off. I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven.

So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. — Ciceronianus

It always does.

The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say). — Ciceronianus

Yes, "It doesn't make any difference" is my favorite philosophical proposition.

I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven. — T Clark

If only he had done something for the law, I might forgive him too.

Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work. — universeness

I think his broader point is about self-awareness. As Peterson and may others have mused, everyone tends to think of themselves as hypothetically opposing Hitler or being in the resistance if they found themselves in Nazi Germany. But the odds are you are more likely to be an active supporter, not a dissenter and much more likely a guard, not a liberator. That is the tragic dimension to human behavior and the self-awareness gap Peterson often attempts to highlight.

I'd be interested in knowing more about the relationship between self-awareness and pragmatism.

I think his broader point is about self-awareness. As Peterson and may others have mused, everyone tends to think of themselves as hypothetically opposing Hitler or being in the resistance if they found themselves in Nazi Germany. But the odds are you are more likely to be an active supporter, not a dissenter and much more likely a guard, not a liberator. That is the tragic dimension to human behavior and the self-awareness gap Peterson often attempts to highlight. — Tom Storm

I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one?

I'd be interested in knowing more about the relationship between self-awareness and pragmatism. — Tom Storm

If you ask me what my goal is with philosophy, I'll say increasing my self-awareness. As this thread shows, I also claim to be a pragmatist. I'd like to say the more self-aware you are, the more likely you are to be a pragmatist, but that's just my vanity speaking. I'm not sure they're related.

I strongly disagree. A pragmatic view never doubts the existence of or denies the value of human emotion. A pragmatic approach does lean toward actions that solve problems rather than satisfying strong feelings. Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse. Is there any philosophy that endorses that? Yes, I guess there probably are. They are not for me. — T Clark

Ok, but pragmatists accepting the existence of emotional extremes was not my issue. I was suggesting that a purely pragmatic approach to finding a solution or even a coping mechanism when dealing with extreme emotions from others is a poor strategy.
Running or fighting might be a better approach when raw facing hatred, dead on. The instinctive reaction will probably save you much more than pragmatism will.

Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse — T Clark

Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's

I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one? — T Clark

No idea - just responding to the other guy. Well, perhaps that the acme of pragmatism is to know that the low road is more likely to be the one people take....

If you ask me what my goal is with philosophy, I'll say increasing my self-awareness. — T Clark

I agree, but self-awareness compared to what? How do we measure our improvement in self-awareness? How can we tell the difference between self-serving opinions and awareness?

Running or fighting might be a better approach when raw facing hatred, dead on. — universeness

In what sense are running or fighting not pragmatic responses, depending on the specific situation? Pragmatically, if the guy is 350 pounds and has a knife, I run. If I can't get away, I fight. I think strong emotion is more likely to lead you to making the wrong decision about what to do than clear thinking.

Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness

That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making.

I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one? — T Clark

Is it not a pragmatic/sensible/logical act, to be aware of self and what your own values are?
Does such not provide you with the personal judgments that you make before you act?
I am not a Peterson advocate as he is a theist and I am an atheist but I find him interesting when he says things like "it would take me 10 hours to even start to explain to you why I believe in God"
Peterson often tries to 'put himself in the shoes of another,' and is correct in that he does not consider the 'easy' shoes.
I think he is trying to understand how the 'good' associated with Godliness measures up against a prison guard who helps facilitate the holocaust. His actions would be evil but his faith in god may still be true, valid and good. He may even truly believe he is doing his gods work. I think it is this area that Peterson is trying to take on.

I agree, but self-awareness compared to what? How do we measure our improvement in self-awareness? How can we tell the difference between self-serving opinions and awareness? — Tom Storm

Keep trying. Try to be honest with yourself. Judge your results against the outside world and other people. Do the best you can. How's that?

That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making. — T Clark

It was hatred that was the motor behind one of the most effective decision making in history: "Der Endlösung" at the Wannsee Konferenz.

In what sense are running or fighting not pragmatic responses — T Clark

Because they are mostly instinctive, there is often not enough time to be pragmatic.
I don't think 'fight or flight' has much reason. You often reason about what happened after it's all over

That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making. — T Clark

Which decision did you consider 'not effective' in the two scenarios involving hate and anger that I gave?

It was hatred that was the motor behind one of the most effective decision making in history: "Der Endlösung" at the Wannsee Konferenz. — HKpinsky

I've flagged your post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision."

For the nazis it was. The machine of destruction was pretty well worked out. Hatred my fiend...

I've flagged you post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision." — T Clark

I agree, the comment from HKpinsky is a concern and the reason for using it as an example should have been clearly explained. Nazi hatred was effectively responded to, as they were destroyed.

Is it not a pragmatic/sensible/logical act, to be aware of self and what your own values are? — universeness

It's not unpragmatic, insensible, or illogical, but I don't know if being more self-aware makes it more likely you will be pragmatic.

I think he is trying to understand how the 'good' associated with Godliness measures up against a prison guard who helps facilitate the holocaust. His actions would be evil but his faith in god may still be true, valid and good. He may even truly believe he is doing his gods work. I think it is this area that Peterson is trying to take on. — universeness

Again, I don't see what this has to do with pragmatism.

Because they are mostly instinctive, there is often not enough time to be pragmatic. I don't think 'fight or flight' has much reason. You often reason about what happened after it's all over — universeness

Reacting to a highly emotional fight or flight response without thinking is understandable, but it's not likely to lead to the best outcome. That's the pragmatic standard.

Which decision did you consider 'not effective' in the two scenarios involving hate and anger that I gave? — universeness

Sorry, I lost track of the decisions you are talking about.

For the nazis it was. The machine of destruction was pretty well worked out. Hatred my fiend... — HKpinsky

There's a pretty good chance you're going to be banned just based on what you've written so far. I suggest you PM a moderator if you want to clarify what you're saying before they do.

Keep trying. Try to be honest with yourself. Judge your results against the outside world and other people. Do the best you can. How's that? — T Clark

I don't have a problem with this since I am not a philosopher, but I wonder if it counts as philosophy. When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in, for instance, phenomenology - all that Epoché and lifeworld hermeneutics, this seems somewhat lacking in depth... or pretention...

Hatred my fiend... — HKpinsky

Fortuitous typo, friend...

Again, I don't see what this has to do with pragmatism — T Clark

I was just trying to give a little more on my understanding of Peterson. He may well laugh at how far away I am from his actual psyche, I don't know.

Sorry, I lost track of the decisions you are talking about. — T Clark

Ok. Here they are again:

Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's

When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in phenomenology — Tom Storm

I've never understood - How can you turn something as simple as my own experience of the world into something so complicated and convoluted. Whenever I start to read something about phenomenology I say "No! No! How does it feel?"

I've flagged you post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision — T Clark

There was the decision made to continue the death camps. It was a decision based not on rational thinking but on booze, ego, hatred. It was even a pragmatic decision. How to get rid of jews as fast as possible. How difficult can it be: a decision that had effect. Like the decision to beat the nazis. Based on a feeling of compassion.

Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness

From here, I can't tell if those were good decisions or not. They certainly aren't ones where you have to act quickly on the spur of the moment. There's time for you to ruminate and try to think about the consequences.