<HTML>

<TITLE>Pragmatism</TITLE>
<H1>Pragmatism</H1>
<BODY>
<HR>

by Hanover Fist<P>
Pragmatic is defined as practical; Testing the validity of all concepts by
their practical results. At least, this is how one of Webster's dictionaries
defines it. It doesn't really do the word justice.
Most people - at least those who `know' what the word means - believe that
pragmatism is the philosophy that claims that the end justifies the means.
Most people (dontcha' just love those nonspecific generalizations?) also claim
that the end never justifies the means. To a pragmatist, both of these
philosophies are equally wrong: the pragmatist believes that the end can
justify the means.<P>
Strategically speaking, having the maximum number of options available
maximizes your chances of accomplishing your goals. If it is necessary to use
undesirable means to accomplish a desirable end, and the gains to be had by
accomplishing this end exceed the losses represented by the means, then the
pragmatist would not hesitate. The person who claims that the end never
justifies the means would never use such means, and so would not have achieved
his goals, and if those goals are philanthropic, than people would have
suffered, relatively, for nothing.<P>
The pragmatist is also a realist, by definition. If he is not, than he could
not truly be a pragmatist, even if he thinks he is, because he would not
really be optimizing his chances; and a pragmatist would always optimize his
chances. For this same reason, a pragmatist would not accept anything on
faith, or without examination and definite verification, except as a possible
working theory. For this reason, he has no use for the morals that have been
handed down from on high, though the reaction that he might engender from
others if he is believed to be, or not to be following them would, of course
be considered. He would have no use for any unreasoning belief, save where the
impression that his beliefs make upon others might affect his goals.<P>
Strategy is the tool of the pragmatist: optimizing his chances for success
when working at cross purposes with others requires it. A pragmatist should
study strategy in all it's applications, as it will surely be required
eventually, and it will always increase his chances, if even just because he
has no way of saying for certain that at some point in the pursuit of his
goals, he might not find himself in a position where it could help. In many
ways, strategy is pragmatism.<P>
Knowledge is the tool of the pragmatist: without it, he cannot accurately
determine where his best chances of success lie. A pragmatist should always
seek such knowledge as he can, giving preference to that knowledge which seems
most likely to aid him, but certainly not limited to that. Similarly,
knowledge should generally be denied to ones potential adversaries, and
provided to ones potential allies. Pragmatism is impossible without knowledge.<P>
A pragmatist must decide what his goals are, and rate  the desirability of
each. He cannot devote too much thought  to this, as everything else depends
on it. Similarly, he  must decide what limits he will place upon his actions,
and  how important each one is. A pragmatist can rationally  derive a code of
morals: in fact, if he gives it enough  thought he is almost certain to do so.<P>
A pragmatist, as stated earlier, should always seek to maximize his chances:
that is what pragmatism IS. He should consider every factor that he can, and
base his decisions on every fact and possibility that he could derive. He
should realize that common sense does not have a terribly good level of
accuracy: so he should seek to make all of his decisions logically, even
mathematically, where possible.<P>
Above all, a pragmatist should use every possible advantage at all times. He
can never be certain that just one insignificant seeming thing, or perhaps an
accumulation of them, might be the difference between success and failure.
Even the tiniest of gains now will be magnified down the line.  Consider: if I
were in a position of power, I would seek to make sure that all those who
might one day challenge me lacked the wherewithal to do so. For this reason I
would, if I could, see to it that people in general did not understand how I
achieved my position. I would try to make sure that the philosophy of
pragmatism was not generally understood, or was generally frowned upon.
Perhaps this is why pragmatism is so misunderstood: the people in power are
pragmatists.<P>
It is easier to control people who do not consider things realistically and
logically, and who do not question what you say and do, or who let themselves
be led by you because of their blind faith. Perhaps this is why unreasoning
patriotism is so encouraged, and why so many religions place so much emphasis
on having faith in them.<P>
This author could certainly benefit if others learned of pragmatism, as he
would have allies, whether they knew it or not, but only if he is not now in a
position of power. Other pragmatists, even if, or perhaps especially if, they
are just normal, `little' people, without great personal resources, would all
help to nibble away at the power bases of the people currently in power.  If
everyone knew about pragmatism, and practiced it, eventually, a mutually
beneficial state would almost certainly come about. In this authors case at
least, it would be acceptable to see such a state come into being, rather than
to achieve great personal power over others. It's simply a practical
compromise.<P>
Interested parties might read books such as `The Prince' by (pardon my
spelling) Nicolo Machiavelli, and Sun Tsu's, `The Art of War'. You never know,
they just might help...<P>
<A HREF="cybertek.html">Back to Cybertek Index</A><P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
