A: Does it matter. That’s the first a question a pragmatist asks.
Over the weekend I started reading William James’s Pragmatism and so far I find it positively fascinating. (Enough so, in fact, that I’m not sure why I haven’t read a formal philosophical work in a while. My wife is somewhat less enthused. :-/) The central premises, as I understand them, are these: that we ought to determine the truth of a matter based solely on its practical consequences, but only insofar as that determination satisfies the constraints of empirical phenomena; that we ought to dispatch without consideration matters in which we can find, after thorough investigation, no practical consequence; that we ought to study in detail the physical world, for there is no other way of knowing it; and that among alternatives we ought to accept as true that one for which the practical consequences offer the greatest good.
These ideas are not new to me. I’ve often spoken in support of pragmatism, and the pragmatic method is the sharpest tool I have for thinking about worldly matters. What is new to me, though, is the formal application of that method to metaphysical matters, such as the argument from design and the existence of God. The former, James concludes, is irrelevant. The world is as it is, and it operates as it operates, indefinitely. Whether it was designed to do so, or whether it simply does, is not worth the time required to ponder the question, for there is no practical consequence for the future of things. We ought to spend more time understanding the workings of the universe, and less time arguing the origin of it.
The latter, namely the matter of God’s existence, James ascribes great weight to, as it has momentous practical importance. Accept the existence of God, with its guarantee of an absolute, of a final destination, of a grander purpose, and James tells us that not only can we rest comfortable in the knowledge that life is not without meaning, but also that we may be relieved from the overwhelming burden of responsibility, that we may take a “moral holiday”. Deny his existence and empiricism tells us that all things are relative, that there is no ultimate end, that purpose is an illusion, as all that is will one day become cold and dark and empty. Faced with these two alternatives, and with a matter about which empiricism is mute, man’s existential desires can only be satisfied by the former. Let it be so!
Very fascinating. Fascinating, but flawed, as we know from that uncomfortable feeling in the pit of the stomach. In James formulation of pragmatism there seem to me to be two bones (more, actually, but who has the time?) that we can’t help but pick. First, cleverly (or perhaps not so much so) hidden from view, is James’s assumption that we are able to accurately assess consequence. Such a feat requires nothing short of clairvoyance. Now, I hear some of you saying that you just do the best with what you have, that you make an educated guess, and that you revise that guess as you become more learned. But here we run into a pointed issue: in order to learn of the world, you must study it, but how can you assess the practical consequences of such study? It gave us the atomic bomb! A conceivable consequence of empiricism is self-destruction! How can we weigh the threat of non-existence, of infinite risk, against the promise of technology, of finite gain? It seems to me that the infinite always trumps the finite, and that empiricism is then its own undoing. Accept this, and the pragmatist will find his feet embedded in concrete, unable to take a step forward for fear of falling from a cliff.
Second, what is the “greatest good”. Greatest good for whom? For me? For my family? For humanity? This question is paramount, for experience tells us that these possibilities are often in conflict. We can be certain that Madoff thought his deviance wonderful for himself, but for those who lost their fortunes there was no good in his deeds. It seems James has left us swimming in a sea of mud! “Wait,” you say, “let us evaluate this matter pragmatically.” We may try, but we will not get far, for it seems to me that the question of the good is always a question of values, and in the land of values, pragmatism is blind.
Despite this criticism, we cannot conclude pragmatism is without merit. It provides us with a framework, hopefully one among many, to which we may subject our beliefs and our opinions in the everlasting pursuit of truth. Imagine a world in which each of took a step back and calmly, without emotion, pondered the practical consequences before reaching for anger, hate, and the multitude of other human vices. James was right, I think, about one thing: many of the issues that divide us would cease to do so.
