I realize now that I may have contributed to the problem by using the term pragmatism or pragmatist. I am not a follower of James or Dewey. I was using the term in its everyday sense of being practical, trying to get what I want. I mean this precisely in the sense that any mammal, for example, uses its skills to get what it wants and avoid what it doesn’t want. It is not a believe about the nature of reality. It is not prescriptive. I simply not that that, like everyone, including you, I takes steps to get what I want. I have not decided that it is ok to try to get what I want, I simply note that I, like other animals, do this. Toward the end of this post I cite a number of you comments about me, assigning me types of evaluations and thinking I do not do, nor have I done. Perhaps this comes out of my using the term pragmatic and its other forms. I did not become a practical person because I read the little about Dewey I have, nor do wolves. My preferences are based I assume ONLY on my nature and nurture. That is genetics and experiences. Which fits with current scientific ideas about what gives us our tendencies and preferences. I have no contraptions to make me feel less fragmented. I do not know why you react to the degree you do to being a non-objectivist. Could be your experiences that are different from mine.
- No. Perhaps you do. The general You, as in one, does not. This is your reaction to non-objectivity. You are universalizing. Please demonstrate that one must do this.
- Pragmatism means only that I take practical measures to achieve my goals. LIke any mammal does, for example.
- Tell me what you have seen (re: eye of beholder) that indicates that my pragmatism, which you share by the way, minimizes my fragmentation. What have you seen to indicate this? Be specific about what facets of my pragmatism lead to minimizing the default fragmentation.
- How does trying to figure out how to accomplish one’s goals lead to minimizing fragmentation? And since you do this also, why does it not minimize your fragmentation?
- Why did you react with amazement when I said you considered it inevitable that one must have a contraption if one is a non-objectivist who is not in a hole? You clearly believe it is inevitable.
- Why is it not possible that the degree of your fragmentation has to do with your history, which is not mine, your parenting, perhaps, and what you were born with genetically? Why is your level of fragmentation the default that must be the case unless there is a contraption?
Here are a couple of things your eye of the beholder ‘saw’…
This is just making up stuff. I have never said that my preferences are derived from objectivists and philosophers.
Nope. This is making stuff up. I make no judgments on the weight of that based on pragmatism or ANYTHING ELSE. It sure seems like you put a lot of weight on that and you suffer it. I do not suffer it. I do not believe in pragmatism and therefore experience less of a hole. I just notice that sans objectivism, I head out not trying to satisfy objective morals, but just trying to achieve things based on my preferences. I note that. I call that pragmatism, because that is what is left without objectivism. Just as you takes steps to achieve your goals. Just as any mammal does, for example. Wolves do not have a contraption that keeps them from the hole. They apply the skills they have to achieve what they want, and to avoid what they do not want to experience. That is all I mean by pragmatism. You are adding in some stuff that is not in there. Perhaps I contributed to your confusion by using the term pragmatism. All I meant was that given a lack of objective morals, I am left with trying to make things more like I prefer them and less like I do not. It is not a philosophical position. It is a given for any animal. Even you. Even you takes steps to find an answer to something you want. You try to solve the problem. Even you order food or shop. Even you go to the doctor when you need to. We are all pragmatists, all of us mammals. Even the objectivists, though they are also other things, and those things fall under the category of objectivism.
And, you are treating your reaction to non-objectivism as the default.
NO, I never said anything like that nor done that kind of evaluation. You make things up.
I may have contributed in some way in not being clear. But I do not react to the absence of objective morals nor to my own potential and past changes in my preferences like you do. It does not create a crisis in me.
You are assuming that all people are alike at base, so If I am not in crisis because of this I have a contraption.
You cannot entertain the possibility that your crisis may be caused by a contraption.
You cannot entertain the possiblity that other people might react differently when faced with a lack of objective morals.
So you behold contraptions where there are none, and you tell me what is going on inside me with no basis.
Can you stop this?