was the American thinker who originated the philosophy of pragmatism. In one essay he mourned how that word had become corrupted and misunderstood. Pragamatism as a philosophy relates to a crtierion for truth: what an idea means is how it works out in practice. So to truly get clear on what an idea means, see what possible practical effect it might have, and there you have the meaning. Such a notion is not at all inconsistent with with having ideals: it is just that a pragmatist would judge the meaning of your ideals by the differences they made in your behaviour.

So upset was Peirce with how his term had come to be misused, he suggested called it pragmatacism instead (as such an ugly and unweildy term would be unlikely to be stolen).

As somewhat of a Peircean pragmatist, and an occasional teacher of American philosophy, I felt the need to point that out! A pragmatist in the original meaning of the term is quite compatible with holding ideals (or even a doctrine of universals, for those with epistemological interests).

to define a term properly, and to call out popular misuse of a term. Its not just an indulgence, I think, and can serve as a corrective to mindlessness. Though I knew quite well you were not confusing the two but using it in the popular sense. It is good to point out such misconceptions, I think: because real pragmatism has quite a powerful bite in sorting out such issues. I also think it valuable to point out that a real pragmatist, of which I count myself one, has no problem with holding ideals to be determinative (as did Peirce). Plus, damn it, I like Peirce too much to let it pass. A real bete noir for me, I guess.

You have misunderstood my point, which turns on the popular misconception of what pragmatism as a philsophy means. In my previous post on this thread I wrote:

Charles Sanders Peirce

was the American thinker who originated the philosophy of pragmatism. In one essay he mourned how that word had become corrupted and misunderstood. Pragamatism as a philosophy relates to a crtierion for truth: what an idea means is how it works out in practice. So to truly get clear on what an idea means, see what possible practical effect it might have, and there you have the meaning. Such a notion is not at all inconsistent with with having ideals: it is just that a pragmatist would judge the meaning of your ideals by the differences they made in your behaviour.

So upset was Peirce with how his term had come to be misused, he suggested called it pragmatacism instead (as such an ugly and unweildy term would be unlikely to be stolen).

As somewhat of a Peircean pragmatist, and an occasional teacher of American philosophy, I felt the need to point that out! A pragmatist in the original meaning of the term is quite compatible with holding ideals (or even a doctrine of universals, for those with epistemological interests).

My apologies to you for not making that clear, sir.

Thanks, sir. The gumbo-soup of ideas always cheers me up somehow. Was all depressed this weekend with personal troubles, then went in and taught a class on the Pythagorean Theorem, of all things (its meaning in intellectual history, what it shows us about how human beings interact with the world), and all of sudden I was smiling. Mindfulness even with Pythagoras. Breathing in and out with the square on the hypotenuse. Logic and Buddha-mind, in a truly pragmatic (hehe) way. Inter-being. A real sticky soup. Good for what ails you. Awareness.

Gads indeed. Always good to have a word from you.

You wrote: "So what would Peirce say about those of us who view non-aggression as a first principle? I see no compromise on the issue, not even to save life on the planet itself. Or, as I quoted before, "In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor.""

Pragmatism is primarily an epistemological heuristic, a sort of sorting device to get clear on what you are claiming to be true. The function of these principles would be to enable you to be rigorously clear about what you are claiming: what your words mean. Peirce that the the universe itself, as an external permanency, would eventually compel all honest inquirers to accept the same principles. In that he came to speak of a community of love, he would perhaps not find your propositions uncongenial, but I would need to spend some time working all that out. The key term to be investigated would perhaps be "non-agression": getting really clear on what you mean by that. A classic statment of what is behind all this can be found in Peirce's "How to Make our Ideas Clear" (found online at: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html)

Thank you for your response.

. . . Peirce thought that . . . (NOT "Peirce that . . . )!!!!

"Living the Vida Vedic"

Hehehe. Made my day. A Jewish Buddhist putting together a ad for iskon. Nice. Reminds me of my favorite saying of the Buddha (roughly paraphrased): Whatever teaching anywhere makes you a better person--that is my teaching too! Now that is pragmatism I can get with.

officer, I find it incredible that none of his superiors are in jail (and I mean specifically his lt., his capt., his first sergeant: I find it impossible to believe they were not aware of what he was doing, or if they were not, they were so criminally negligent in their supervisory duties that they should be jailed as well). I agree with the commandant of the prison that Graner shamed the MP corps: but I would point out that those officers who had Graner under their direct supervision brought far more shame on it. I was taught that I was responsible for the actions of those under me, with no excuses for negligence. If Graner's lt. and capt. aren't in there with him, why is he?