5
5
0
The first freedom you must surrender for blind adherence to any "ism" is freedom of thought. Communism, socialism, conservatism, progressivism, leftism, rightism, centristism, you name it. Debate, even simple discussion becomes impossible when we are blinded by any "ism". So, which has you in its thrall?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_se8c-wN35M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_se8c-wN35M
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
Pragmatism. I'm not tied to any specific ideology. And, I don't see myself giving up any freedom to have it.
(4)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Respectfully, you are correct. Pragmatism for its own sake has no philosophical base.
Defn.... "Pragmatism, PHILOSOPHY
an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application."
So there is no basis of freedom to be had with pragmatism. Instead pragmatism is attained by addressing what works, regardless the aims or consequences. If ones aim is freedom that's good, however, if ones aims are less noble the end result transforms into "The end justifies the means" approach. Hitler, for instance has been labeled a pragmatist many times, because he was result oriented.... If he tried something and it worked, he went with it until it didn't... That was his " truth ", right up until the outcomes proved the current model was no longer effective.
I would suggest that pragmatism, in, and of itself does not support freedom, as it is more of an assessment and evaluation process with no basis of liberty as it's premise. Interested in your thoughts. Regards
Defn.... "Pragmatism, PHILOSOPHY
an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application."
So there is no basis of freedom to be had with pragmatism. Instead pragmatism is attained by addressing what works, regardless the aims or consequences. If ones aim is freedom that's good, however, if ones aims are less noble the end result transforms into "The end justifies the means" approach. Hitler, for instance has been labeled a pragmatist many times, because he was result oriented.... If he tried something and it worked, he went with it until it didn't... That was his " truth ", right up until the outcomes proved the current model was no longer effective.
I would suggest that pragmatism, in, and of itself does not support freedom, as it is more of an assessment and evaluation process with no basis of liberty as it's premise. Interested in your thoughts. Regards
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SSG Gerhard S. - "Instead pragmatism is attained by addressing what works, regardless the aims or consequences." I'd disagree with this point. My perspective is that pragmatism addresses what works within the constraints of our prevailing political ideologies (i.e. mixing together the best ideas that the mainstream parties can offer within a market-based democracy). That would screen out the scenario you mentioned, as it would never fly within our political world, our market-based economy, and our system of shared governance.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I am certain that's what it means to you sir... The dictionary definition is as follows....
"pragmatism definition. An approach to philosophy, primarily held by American philosophers, which holds that the truth or meaning of a statement is to be measured by its practical (i.e., pragmatic) consequences. William James and John Dewey were pragmatists."
So, my only point here, and I'm not being critical of your appreciation or application of this idea, is that it has no foundation. What I mean, is that this concept can be used by good, or by evil with equal effectiveness. It's whole point is to objectively evaluate what works, and go with it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as the aim is to recognize individual rights, liberty, and economic freedom. If the aim runs contrary to such concepts, the problem is, it will also work to stifle, suppress, or eliminate these values just as effectively, and without prejudice. Regards
"pragmatism definition. An approach to philosophy, primarily held by American philosophers, which holds that the truth or meaning of a statement is to be measured by its practical (i.e., pragmatic) consequences. William James and John Dewey were pragmatists."
So, my only point here, and I'm not being critical of your appreciation or application of this idea, is that it has no foundation. What I mean, is that this concept can be used by good, or by evil with equal effectiveness. It's whole point is to objectively evaluate what works, and go with it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as the aim is to recognize individual rights, liberty, and economic freedom. If the aim runs contrary to such concepts, the problem is, it will also work to stifle, suppress, or eliminate these values just as effectively, and without prejudice. Regards
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Wisdomism is not a word as far as I know; but, wisdom to deal with whatever the future holds would be the most useful for me CPT Jack Durish
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
This is so wrong! The freedom of thought is NOT the freedom from thought. Get it right. You are making the classic mistake for Freedom of religion and Freedom from religion.
Every "ism" do share common ground. Yes they do (surprise!). The problem is each individual that having the debate don't look for common ground, they seek for victory over the other side. All the freedom enshrined in our founding paper, all base on one concept, we are in this together. "Either we hang separately or we hang together". Without this idea in each other minds, there will be no seeking of common ground. ALL the constitutional rights we got, is also base on leaving each other alone to do their stuff, as long as they are not trying to hurt you and to steal from you. Without that idea, all the "ism" can't survive together. Socialism and Communism can survive within this land if they only understand this two ideas.
Your assessment is wrong to blame "ism", it is human itself to be blamed, not the "ism".
Every "ism" do share common ground. Yes they do (surprise!). The problem is each individual that having the debate don't look for common ground, they seek for victory over the other side. All the freedom enshrined in our founding paper, all base on one concept, we are in this together. "Either we hang separately or we hang together". Without this idea in each other minds, there will be no seeking of common ground. ALL the constitutional rights we got, is also base on leaving each other alone to do their stuff, as long as they are not trying to hurt you and to steal from you. Without that idea, all the "ism" can't survive together. Socialism and Communism can survive within this land if they only understand this two ideas.
Your assessment is wrong to blame "ism", it is human itself to be blamed, not the "ism".
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google