Exstentialism and Pragmatism

[bonfirejovi]

Sorry to say but you are a weird ivory tower academic who needs a large dose of reality.

[hairoku]

@bonfirejovi Is it ivory tower to post videos on a publicly available, and free, forum like Youtube? Is this unapproachable due to, if not cost, terminology, jargon, or excessively particular and obfuscatory language? The man may be a bit stodgy but he's hardly ivory tower.

[not2tees]

Thanks for not further humiliating neanderthals by comparisons to Rush Limbore and the O'Riley Hacktor. We have enough to overcome as it is.

[Nonoyawns]

C. S. Pierce originated Pragmatism, although William James expanded and popularized it (albeit) academically. And I wouldn't really look to old school curriculum as a sort of educational holy grail. Not that I think our education system is much perfect now, but it is generally getting better. But nice video. I myself seem to pair existentialism and pragmatism in forming my outlook. Robert Soloman showed existentialism as a very American philosophy with its emphasis on freedom and individualism.

[shaygahweh]

Thank you, sir!

[Mikeofdundee1987]

Great video. Enjoyed it greatly. When you talk about the hitler youth programs and biased media in America I am guessing you mean the anti-muslim feelings.

Therefore, I though it would interest you to know that " Europol figures show that more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the past three years were carried out by non-Muslims"

I cannot post the link but if you search it you can view this for yourself.

Once again, Great video

[theyasin33]

And btw I love William James too.. U have any philosophers or any other intellectual's that inspired you??

[radiohogan]

@theyasin33

I have done 4 or 5 videos about the work of C. Wright Mills. Check out Mills.

[theyasin33]

Ah.. I wish I can grow up to be just like you lol.. Keep posting videos.!!! Chomsky is one of my favorite people btw..

[whiff1962]

Coming to live in the United States and, watching YT, slowly changed my thinking to what I would call, conceptually, a Pragmatist-libertarian humanist. Yes, indeed, developing one's own workable conceptual grid is absolutely essential in present culture, awash with the cacophony of information; and a most cynical, materialist world,

[billybraggdave1]

not very acdemic ... but charming non the less ! i like when he keeps saying funky european philophy and how he calls bill o realiy that o reily turkey

[DonJack1776]

I think you should have mentioned Camus as well. He never called himself an existentialist, but neither did Nietzsche and a few others you mentioned.

[phlewis86]

I love this video. I am deeply into philosopy. I just wish more people would get into philosopy.

[samsonlovesyou]

I'm not sure I fully understand Existentialism. Would it be correct to say that it's the doctrine that we're responsible for our own decisions?

If so, even if we take away the mass media propaganda, can it really be possible to have a truly independent mind? There will always be something to influence our thoughts and actions. We still can't conclude on Determinism vs Free Will. Perhaps I'm not following the video so well.

[radiohogan]

You have the general idea.

Existentialism is striving for an authentic life, free of the demands of social institutions: family, religion, military, business, schools, etc. It is a lifelong struggle to return to ones original self. It is healing the alienation or the split of man from his original self.

[Angk0rwat]

That's not quite right. You're right about the authentic life; the idea that we're radically responsible for what we make of ourselves and the world and to think otherwise is "bad faith". But, I think it's misleading to say you're "returning to your original self".

Take the Existentialist slogan "existence precedes essence": there is no "original self", human beings don't have an essential nature, and any of the properties that could be used to describe our "essence" are of our own choosing.

[radiohogan]

We understand each other. The phrase "returning to your original self" may not be the best one to describe a time life when we were not indoctrinated by the institutions we all encounter. I am open to any suggestions you may make.

I did not mean to suggest human beings have an essential nature. We are diverse.

I certainly accept your idea that we are the ones to define ourselves.

[Ranger4564]

@Angk0rwat I disagree with your assertion that there is no authentic self prior to a chosen stance. The thing you're doing is generalizing and formulating a condition for all people, when in fact, people start out quite differently and absorb information quite differently, and react to choice differently. Essentially, there is an authentic self at birth, but that self may be not strongly expressed or may be quite prominent. Many many characteristics are innate.

[Ranger4564]

@Ranger4564 For example, curiosity (both quantity and quality), intelligence, humor, sorrow, compassion, empathy, self-interest, charity, greed, kindness, malice, etc, are all essentially present in the infant at birth, but just not easy to apprehend. How the mind works and how connections are made, both between memories and thoughts, and between emotions and sensations, determines many of the aforementioned qualities. As the infant grows, their reactions are altered through indoctrination.

[Angk0rwat]

@Ranger4564

Ok, you disagree with Existentialists (Sartre specifically), not with me. I was just pointing out a couple areas where I thought the poster got his interpretation wrong, not supporting a position.

[whiff1962]

One might be tempted to say that arriving at such an authentic level of existence would be living in good faith? I would argue that the self is not a sui generis, thing in itself; it is a contigent "thing". I would argue that the self is an "unknown variable", wrought by our social intercourse, thanks to our human nature. However, there is an inconsistency in all this, and I believe Weber might have seen it clearer than I.

[whiff1962]

I am not familiar with Kirkegaard, hell, I can't even spell his name. However, I do wonder how his pronouncedly religious considerations informed his notion of responsibility, say, versus fate.

[samsonlovesyou]

I'm 8 months smarter than when I asked that question...and...

Existentialism? *Thimbs Down*

[slipcurve]

Are you sure about that definition of pragmatism? All ideas are equal? Did you leave something out? I'm sure I misunderstood.

Do you agree with this :

"Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected."

Thanks for the video!

[radiohogan]

Hello Slipcurve:

Part I:

Shame on me, I left out the heart of pragmatism, which is that a philosophical system (or reality) or actions are to be evaluated by the consequences of believing or acting in that way. This is the pragmatists test of truth, as your quote states.

[radiohogan]

Part II:

However, I use pragmatism to evaluate categories of reality, ideas or propositions (in your example). In requiring folks believe all categories of reality are valid and equal, we are forced to be open minded. The open mind is the scientific rational mind. It is hard, if not impossible, to propagandize an open mind.

In the end, I find your quotation to limiting. Who is to judge whether an "--- ideology or proposition ---" has practical consequences? Who is to be the judge?

[slipcurve]

"Who is to judge whether an "--- ideology or proposition ---" has practical consequences?"

A good question. Also when can something be said to work "satisfactorily"? Satisfactorily according to whoem? The equation might have many sides.

[Angk0rwat]

The "judge" for the pragmatist is whether an idea can be used to accomplish the goals we set out for it.

[radiohogan]

Before one can evaluate (judge) the consequences of a action (adopting a belief in a category of reality), one must array a wide assortment selection of actions (i.e. belief in a category of reality). This requires the pragmatist to accept all categories of reality as being both valid & equal. It is the completely open mind.

The pragmatist evaluates (judges) based on the known or likely consequence of the action or the acceptance of an idea.

[5Sissy]

Greetings from Illinois....

What can I say but glad to find someone I can relate to.

Sissy

[radiohogan]

I very much like the way you expressed your thought.

Pragmatism is a matter of withholding judgment. The concrete scientific reasoning and the abstract metaphor of faith are two different categories of reality that are valid and equal. However, there is another aspect to pragmatism; perhaps a more important aspect.

Beliefs, values, customs, all categories of reality & actions have consequence. There are different consequences of belief in evolution and creationism.

[CHILDRENofMEN666]

my apologie mr.hogan.who am i to judge.i believe you are very wise and intellegent.thank you for taking the time to wake some of us up and also for the ones thats been awake u have restore faith.thank u my friend

[CHILDRENofMEN666]

HISTORY of ideas?listen to this guy.listen to the words.only winners get to write history and now ur telling me u got another winner for mr right?i cant believe ppl fall for this shyt.dont be that be this be that,thats not good for cuz i know cuz i learnt it from the best so take this?AAAHAHH.listen to him ONE NEEDS TO THINK yes wise,but then right after that he says think LIKE HIM.SHYTS JUST ANOTHER HUSTLE MONEY=DEBT.wolf in sheeps clothing.

[radiohogan]

Hi:

Please elaborate!

Live and Be Well / Mike Hogan

[CHILDRENofMEN666]

sounds good!!!tho i dont know the meaning of those words.cant beat a man in his own game so we shouldnt play anymore right?but we should play ur game right?no need to explane the words or where thy came from or who made it up!!some freakn professors -educated -cridentals-(Exstentialism and Pragmatism)same shyt to me just another fukn hustle.looks like a sheep?play my game now and it will be all good.lol clown

[radiohogan]

Hello:

Your comment is appreciated.

All the Best / Mike Hogan

[NathanZimmerman]

C.S. Peirce was the creator of pragmatism.

Pragmatism does not/never did argue that all idea systems and beliefs are equal. That is simply a bad characterization. Pragmatism is essentially a set of views about the relation of belief/justification/language to praxis or practices.

Hence the relation of pragmatism and practicality that you mention being confused.

[Lasershoppe]

Noam Chomsky wrote that Americans are the most propagandized people, the most other-directed in the world? I do not think Americans are exceptional in this way. I think a look at Japans long military history and Chinas long history of Confucianism shows those peoples are at least as propagandized as Americans.

[radiohogan]

Hello Lasershoppe:

I can easily agree all countries are propagandized with jingoistic nationalism and ethnocentrism.

Your phrase "other directed" is used by the great sociologist, David Riesman, in his book "The Lonely Crowd." He uses the phrase to describe all people in Post Modernity.

[zsylvana]

In my opinion Pragmatisms is United States greatest contritribution to intectual thought.

It is a shame that people like Peirce,Dewey

and Veblen is almost forgotten.And that Istituonalist thinkers like C. Wright Mills and other is hardly known in USA.Here in Europe they are still remebered.Our swedish

Economist Nobelprize winner Gunnar Myrdal,

told his admiration for and the inspiration Pragmatism and Istitutinalism of Veblen and others.So it´s good to se you taking care of the Heritage.

[senselessbattery]

If all ideas are valid and equal, how do you uphold any particular view. Why is Capitalism better/worse than Socialism?

[radiohogan]

Pragmatism requires one to maintain an open mind regarding the relative value of categories of reality. It requires one to continually increase ones understanding of any subject.

As to which is better - capitalism or socialism; there are very important points to be made about the merits of either. This may be why one does not find pure capitalism or pure socialism anywhere today. Rather, societies have mixed economies.

[senselessbattery]

Thanks for prompt answer.

I don't understand what is meant by "categories of reality." Is this a Kant thing?

What does the practise of keeping an open mind entail? Should one disregard the evidence of ones senses or conclusions drawn logically from such evidence? Should one not hold firm to ones rational convictions? Is there just thing as a rational conviction?

Why is a mixed economy better than a pure capitalist/socialist economy?

[radiohogan]

Categories of reality are any ideas, values, customs, political programs, etc. The phrase is as broad as you care to make it.

An open mind is a matter of respecting the other guys opinion. It's a matter of realizing other folks have different experiences and education. It is about learning from each other. The rich fella may advocate libertarian capitalism, while poor, working class and lower middle class folks may have socilist ideas (sometimes without knowing their ideas are socialist).

[radiohogan]

One need not disregard ones senses. However, it is important to remember other folks experience the world differently with their senses. William James' book: "Varieties of Religious Experience" makes this point very well, as he studied the mystical experiences of folks from many different religious backgrounds.

The open mind holds out the possibility of changing ones "rational convictions," if one's continuing education changes ones view on a particular matter. There are rational convictions.

[radiohogan]

I did not say mixed economies are better then either a pure capitalist or pure socialist economy. Although in pragmatic reality it is hard to find purity in almost anything, including political systems. Almost all the countries of the world have mixed economies. Naomi Klein illustrates this in her book: "The Shock Doctrine."

All the best, and thanks for the chat. If you have other ideas, please share them. I enjoy conversation.

[radiohogan]

Opinions about the merits of men are not facts, whether we are talking about ballplayers or philosophers.

[socionomic]

I sincerely applaud your project, but you are in need of some fact checking. C.S. Peirce is the founder of Pragmatism, not William James. Peirce and Dewey are today considered to be the superior philosophers, although James is certainly not without his merits.

[abandonship42]

Peirce, while continuing some ideas of Pragmatism from Emerson (as argued by Cornell West) actually rejected James as bastardizing Pragmatism. Peirce, while being a major figure in the development of Pragmatism, is the odd man out, and therefore, while being influential, was not a Pragmatist as we know the philosophy today to be.

RadioHogan: great vid. keep on!

[Myndir]

I think it's worthwhile using the terminology of the philosophers themselves, whereby Pierce defined himself later in life as a "pragmaticist", James as a "pragmatist" and Dewey descibed his approach as "instrumentalism". I personally incline towards Dewey and I consider his emphasis on the application of philosophy to practical problems to be brilliant.