Pragmatism in Its Most Basic

¶ … Pragmatism

In its most basic sense, prudent pragmatism is a philosophical ideology that believes if something works well, the meaning of that something is found in the practical nature of accepting (therefore actualizing) it; and that impractical ideas should be rejected as being counterproductive. While this theory had some roots in Ancient times, it was not until the American view of rugged individualism combined with humanism in the 1800s that it became a significant modern theory. It seems that this pragmatic approach bled into American education even, with a combination of William James and John Dewey with the basic ideas that much external theory and non-essential values (e.g. Hegel) really have no practical use in society (Hildebrand, 2003).

Monism is a view that there is unity in any field of inquiry. There are three major templates to monism: 1) idealism holds that only the mind is real; 2) neutral monism believes that everything can be reduced to pure energy, and; 3) physicalism (materialism) says only the physical is real, thoughts about it can essentially be placed into the physical (Rescher, 2003). Thus, as culture and society change, so do concepts of what is real, what is acceptable, and what is truth. Combining pragmatism and monism can easily lead to a logical conclusion -- that life, if you will, is relative.

Essential, this view develops into causitry, a case by case definition of ethics and morality. In the contemporary world, it is seen as somewhat of an offshoot of utilitarianism (the ends justify the means), yet it is also a framework for political and social dialog in a pluralistic society. Over time, causitry moved from a fusion of religion and politics to a justification of anti-securlarism to an Age of Enlightenment theory of ethics to a more liberalized view that moved from uniformity of morality (based on religion) to value consensus that is now the norm rather than the exception. After all, how can we reasonably expect people of historical times to conform to modern standards when society was so different (e.g. The Founding Fathers and the verbiage in the Constitution, for instance) (Bluhm and Heineman, 2007).

Thus, it is really a fluid and evolving process that moves causitry -- or case by case ethics. In Roman society, for instance, law was the binding and organizing factor that kept the elite in power, and therefore had real political value with additional justification in the form of morality and religion. In Medieval times Christianity took over as the dominant form of ethics and through feudalism, divine law organized social and political hierarchy. As religiosity was replaced by humanism, and the Catholic church by alternative viewpoints (Protestantism) political and social structures were torn apart, forcing change and a decline in the structure of feudalism and the opening of a new, more individualistic, some say greedy, system of capitalism. Philosophies of the Age of Englitenment further distanced themselves from using religion as the sole basis for structure with such philosophers as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes and others holding that human existence was more individual -- and therefore more dependent upon individual morals and judgements. Romanticism took these ideas and, through fusion, merged them with ideas on nature, emotion, and the grand capacity for actualization, but again, through the individual (Tumin and Plotch, 1977; (Bluhm and Heineman). The modern age is a study in the evolution of cultural and political diversity, also known as pluralism, or the idea that power in society is distributed into many groups and, epitomized by James Madison in The Federalist Papers that the unity and preservation of society occurs primarily through consenses. There may be a societal goal, for instance, but the basis of any society is the individual. If individuals are born as Rousseau's blank slate, then society allows those individuals to actualize while still maintaining a moral structure.Modern democracy is based both on pluralism and the capacity for consensus (Hamilton, Jay and Madison, 1998). As we move more and more to a notion of "it depends," without at least a semblance of structure, both democracy and the freedom of the individual are at risk (Bluhm and Heineman, 48).