[PREV - SHOTGUN_TRUTH] [TOP]
RUSSELLS_BREAKFAST
October 21, 2007
December 10, 2007
Pragmatists preach "utility
is the test of truth". Really? So Bertrand Russell
says, anyway...
My guess: this is just
another way of pushing (In "Philosophy in the
the problem around. Twentieth Century", p.265
of "the Basic Writings"
(trade pbk).
Russell's point: the con BASIC_RUSSELL
is useful to the con artist.
The pragmatist presumably has
other ideas about "useful to who?" And maybe useful "how?"
and probably (perhaps
I would presume they're critically for me) "when?"
thinking about utility to
mankind (i.e. they're The amphetamine is useful
"consequentialists"). for the speed freak, but
only for a limited time.
And indeed: Once again, it's the
long run/short run
"The pragmatist may say, in reply distinction.
that the success which is a test of
truth is social, not individual: a (and I sincerely
belief is 'true' when the success of hope that's not a
the human race is helped by the football analogy).
existance of the belief."
Bertrand Russell, "Dewey's New Logic"
p. 203 of the "Basic Writings"
Bertrand Russell attributes to Dewey's
pragmatism a problem similar to what
I've been wrestling with:
How do you evaluate a philosophy
based on it's long term widespread
effects on humanity?
Russell objects to Dewey's "logic"
on very logical grounds -- but could
it be he's being obtuse?
Dewey can't ground moral reasoning in
Truth-- but than neither can anyone
else, Russell included, right?
So, Dewey tries to avoid the word.
But Russell resorts to extreme cases,
e.g. he invokes a desire for suicide
to disprove that "truth is that which Or, as I prefer,
achieves desire". "Whatever works, baby."
Does the point hold for less extreme
conditions? If we must live without
universals, then we must be cautious I think there's an analogy
with these extremes. to curve-fitting here-- if
it's solely an empirical
If moral principle is relation, then you don't
not application of extrapolate far beyond the
physics and math (or region of observation.
perhaps evolutionary
biology), then is it If you have some
legalistic? reason for expecting
a curve of a given
A "reasonable man" shape, then you can
standard would also use that to range farther.
not stand up to
Russell's scrutiny. Without the true curve,
Can we get by without? you must step carefully.
"How am I to know the consequences of believing
that I had coffee for breakfast? If I say 'the
consequences are such-and-such', this in turn
will have to be tested by its consequences
before I can know whther what I have said was a
'good' or a 'bad' statement. And even if this
difficulty were overcome, how am I to judge
which set of consequences is the more
satisfactory? One decision as to whether I had
coffee may fill me with contentment, the other
with determination to further the war effort.
Each of these may be considered good, but until
I have decided which is better I cannot tell
whether I had coffee for breakfast. Surely this
is absurd."
Bertrand Russell,
"John Dewey", p.212 of
"The Basic Writings"
The kind of subjects
Dewey was interested in
inquiring into were most JUDGE_TASTE
certainly not Russell's
breakfest.
Is the difficulty of
comprehending social
effects an argument
against their importance?
And I think that Russell
makes a presumption that
all truth must be one, but
that begs the question.
Note that he changes tack
and argues for objective
truth on the grounds of
the social dangers of the
contrary:
"The concept of 'truth' as something
dependent upon facts largely outside
human control has been one of the
ways in which philosophy hitherto
has inculcated the necessary element
of humility. When this check upon
pride is removed, a further step is
taken on the road towards a certain
CONSEQUENCES kind of madness-- the intoxication
of power which invaded philosophy
with Fichte, and to which modern
men, whether philosphers or not, are
prone. I am persuaded that this
intoxication is the greatest danger
of our time, and that any philosophy
which, however unintentionally,
contributes to it is increasing the
danger of cast social disaster."
-- Bertrand Russell, "John Dewey",
p. 214 of "Basic Writings",
originally from "A History of
Western Philosophy" (1946)
ABSOLUTISTS_COCOANUT
--------
[NEXT - PRACTICAL_LIMITS]