This thread is permanently archived
Is "ideology vs. pragmatism" really a thing?
| Those aren't pragmatists then, but simply hide under the guise of pragmatism. It can be difficult to be a true pragmatist, because to do so is to either be an eternal skeptic, not to just pick what seems the best option available in the moment and roll with it. The only reason many poltical leaders attempt to adopt it is so they'll seem closer to the center political spectrum to capture a more varied audience. Being more firm in your stance is simply not beneficial.
| >>520422
>Those aren't pragmatists then, but simply hide under the guise of pragmatism.
I am pretty conviced that this is all what pragmatism is about.
>It can be difficult to be a true pragmatist, because to do so is to either be an eternal skeptic
Funny, because I am an eternal sceptic, but people judge me rathar as an "ideologue" than a "pragmatic".
>the center political spectrum
Also this "center" and "centrist" thing seems pretty subjective and dependent on the pov to me.
| Hence, >not to just pick what seems the best option in the avalable moment<.
Ideologes say you are an ideologue because you challeng their world view. People who actually process your words will reply to you accordingly.
Why do you think pragmatism is what is? Can you also elaborate on it?
| ideologists are those that see ideas prevailing over facts.
pragmatists are those that see facts prevailing over ideas. the difference of both sides is the logical application of behavioral regulations.
| >>520507
>pragmatists are those that see facts prevailing over ideas.
If I point a gun on you, that's a fact that make you follow any ideology I want to. Am I a pragmatic or an ideologue then?
>ideologists are those that see ideas prevailing over facts
It's strange, because I agree to the theory that there is a "superstructure" (ideas) that is determined by an economical basis (facts). But saying this out loud make people call me a (marxist) ideologue.
| >>520511
- How did threats come into the equation?
A pragmatist is generally a realist. They'd point guns because circumstances call for it. Doing it to force them would make you a criminal and, yes, an ideologue.
- I personally think the superstructure determines the economic basis. That's how politics work. It would be great if we could see that the too are more seperable than people think however.
| >>520517
>How did threats come into the equation?
It was just a thought experiment.
>They'd point guns because circumstances call for it.
To decide which circumstances allow this is usually an ideological question, not a pragmatical. So I stick to it: Pragmatism is just an empty word used by those who are in power.
>I personally think the superstructure determines the economic basis.
So you see ideas prevailing over facts? That makes you an ideologue!
| >>520511
you'd be pragmatic in the means, ideological in the ends.
if you were called a marxist it's probably because you were being stupid.
| This conversation is going downhill fast as I feel the definitions aren't really solid here. The thing you people are gesturing to is that facts don't call for action. Like
"The earth orbits around the sun"
"Water boils at 100 degree Celsius"
"Tic Tacs contain sugar in them"
...are all fact. Yet if pragmatists ONLY act on facts they basically don't do shit cause facts don't tell you what to do. No one Googles "random facts" to inform their beliefs!
1/3
| So basically this is a false dichotomy cause even "pragmatists" get ideas on how things should be. Even if they !!OWN YOU WITH FACTS!! it doesn't change that they have ideas. They create a plan on "what's best"
This dichotomy is normally used to divert attention by people that hide their ideology under facts by discrediting someone for talking about ideas. "Your ideas prevail over the facts!"
2/3
| And the goal of an ideology is probably the most important thing to discuss. The endgoal of an idea is literally the motive of all actions taken. The goal of an idea informs what facts are relevant.
If we have the idea that poverty is too high that gives us a goal of thinking of a way to lower poverty. And I doubt the content of Tic Tacs would be important in such a discussion.
Yet with the ideology vs. pragmatism the "pragmatist" can call you out for being an "ideologue"
3/3
| So. In short no. Having an ideology can't be defined as "ideas over facts" while being Pragmatic can't be defined as "facts over ideas" Those are bullshit definition!
This dichotomy isn't even a real debate! It's a fantasy straw man debate in which everyone wants to be the facts guy and OWN the dumb and raging ideologue WITH FACTS!. Not even imagining how on the other side there is a human who lived a different life and learned about different things.
4/3?
| Ideology v. Pragmatism is to my mind quite a simple distinction.
Take for a case study Woodrow Wilson, father of the League of Nations. He was a staunch internationalist & pacifist, devout in his ideology.
Yet he broke promises on everything from civil rights to keeping the US out of the war. Why? To advance his cause.
That is what makes him a pragmatist: he was willing to violate his principles in order to advance them, where an ideologue would prioritize adherence to them.
| >>520579
>facts don't call for action
Again a thought experiment:
If I piss on your rug, than this is an action that created the fact that your rug is full with my piss.
Does the phrase or concept "to create facts" exist in english?
A less offensive example from my mother tongue (german): The word for "science" (=Wissenschaft), is a composition of the words "knowledge" (=wissen) and "(to) create (sth.)" (=schaffen).
| Another question: Is pragmatism compatible with the concept of "general human rights"?
| >>520764
>his cause
Isn't a cause something deep ideological? I mean, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei and our beloved supreme leader Kim Jong Un also >broke promises [...]. Why? To advance their [his] cause. Are they pragmatics too? Why is a lobbyist for rich people rather considered to be "true pragmatics" than let's say people that proclaim social or economical (chance) equality? For me it's a clear evidence that "pragmatism" as its commonly used only is interest dependent propaganda.
| Ideology and pragmatism are different, but usually are nit mutually exclusive. Ideology gives the end goal, pragmatism gives the means to that end. The "argument" arises in the few cases where they dont align, say when lying could help a priest againt having the church discredited. Pragmatically, its the most effective solution. However, ideologically, that would be the worst action. Its similar to the diatinction between ethics and morals.
| >>520921
I won't pretend to know the mind of Khamenei or Kim, but I feel the former has sabotaged opportunities to advance his (apprent) ideologies & his nation by veering too hard into them (eg, going out of his way to push away to make enemies he has no use for), while Kim has little attachment at all to the ideology he preaches.
(1/2)
| Rather than a binary distinction it's probably better described as a scale, but the fundamental question is "How likely is one to shoot themselves in the foot for ideological reasons?" If the answer is considerably more likely than not, we can probably get away with calling him ideologue. Vice versa, a pragmatist.
Cases of people who would *never* or almost never violate their ideals, or alternatively never sacrifice for them, as one might expect of Kim, are rather extreme cases.
| To be sure, Kim sabotages the DPRK & his own standing in the world a good deal, but I'd argue that it's not for the sake of ideological concerns.
| >>521526
>How likely is one to shoot themselves in the foot for ideological reasons?
What about to risk being shot for ideological reasons? Like nonviolent resistance.
Lots of people agree that defending themselves is pretty rational and pragmatic. But where is the line? For example: Are the USAs military bases around the globe, nuclear weapons and questionable interventions really "defense"? Aren't the "liberal" weapon laws in the USA rather ideological then pragmatic?
| >Are the USAs military bases around the globe, nuclear weapons and questionable interventions really "defense"? Aren't the "liberal" weapon laws in the USA rather ideological then pragmatic?
If this all really is "rational" and "pragmatic", I'd prefer ideologism. But I doubt it is. As initially stated: Pragmatism as it is commonly used is nothing but an ulitmative killer- and non-argument of those who are in power to nip alternatives in the bud that could harm the status quo.
| So, the best practical distimction I can think up is that idealism is when your action is dictated by a general broad idea or concept, wheras pragmatism is when you action is dictated by circumstance.
Im going to use chivalry purely in the positive sense as an example. The idea of Chivalry would dictate that one should always treat women with respect. Even if doing so grinds against your desires or would somehow inconveince you, to do otherwise would be to betray that ideal. 1/2
| Pragmatism, which is an ideology itself, dictates to adjust actions to the desired solution, regardless of values. Thus, one might respect one women to preserve status, and murder another in an alley to remove an obstacle. Now, these are extreme examples, and I myself actually like the principles behind pragmatism, but I feel it clearly expresses my point. 2/3
| Ideology is all about promoting and defending broad ideas and aspects, pragmatism is all about defining your actions based on a very specific outcome. 3/3
This thread is permanently archived
| In my opinion the difference between ideology and pragmatism is only a question of power. In other words: "Pragmatism" is to me only a term for a dominating and/or commonly accepted ideology. I think "Pragmatists" are nothing but the ruling ideologues, that either blame their enemies as "stupid ideologists" while secretly ally or at least support any other ideology that seem to serve their own cause.