Synthesized answer
Slosson implies that a pragmatic mode of thinking, when applied to fields like politics, law, ethics, and history, would involve evaluating acts by their consequences rather than their causes and validating truths by their practicality rather than precedent [1]. This means that the "true" way of conceiving an object or judging a situation would be the way most valuable for a given purpose, and that which satisfies or helps a human purpose in cognitive activity [3]. Truth would be what is good for us, what helps us, and what shows us how to act [2].
A key characteristic of pragmatic thinking in these domains would be the focus on utility and effectiveness. For instance, in law, a pragmatic approach would assess legal rulings based on their outcomes and their impact on society, rather than solely on historical legal traditions or precedents [1]. The unique challenges might include resistance from those accustomed to traditional methods or a shift in established power structures. A potential benefit would be the development of laws and ethical frameworks that are demonstrably beneficial and effective in addressing current societal needs and problems, potentially leading to clearer…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
journalist through the study of chemistry, and in science the pragmatic mode of thinking is universal and unquestioned. So when I went to writing about other things,—politics, law, ethics, history, religion, and the like,—I naturally used my brains in the same way as in science, that is, I persisted in the valuation of all acts by their consequences instead of their causes and in the validation of all truths by practicality instead of precedent. But when I found how this way of thinking shocked, annoyed, or amused people I began to fear that I should have to drop it as I had other evidences…
n a way that we make truth for our own use. What we think must be of use to us in some way, else why should we think it? The truth is what is good for us, what helps us, what gives us joy and strength, what shows us how to act, what ties up fact to fact, so the chain will hold, what makes us see all things clear and straight, and what keeps us from stray paths that turn out wrong in the end. Thought is a tool, a means to an end. Man has to act, and so he must think. In this way he asks the world what it means to him. The need for thought first comes when man asks "Why?" or "Which?" so that he…
econd, accepting any statement that claimed to be true and devoting themselves to the study of its logical implications. But the pragmatist is more interested in finding out how and in what way an assertion comes to be called true and how it makes good its claim after it has been asserted. As Schiller puts it: What then is common to all sorts of Truth and Error, and renders them species of a common genus? Nothing but their psychological side; "truth" is the proper term for what satisfies, "error" for what thwarts, a human purpose in cognitive activity. The difference between Truth and…
e present crisis? Everywhere the "truths" believed in are relative to the nationality and sympathies of their believers. It is, indeed, lamentable that such an orgy of the will to believe should have been needed to illustrate the pragmatic nature of truth, but who will dispute that for months say 999 persons out of 1000 have been believing what they please, and consciously or unconsciously making it "true" with a fervor rarely bestowed even by the most ardent philosophers on the most self-evident truths? No improbability, no absurdity, no atrocity has been too great to win credence, and the…
n any definition of pragmatism, and that the opponents of pragmatism differ still more widely in their conception of it. Schiller says that the most serious drawback in the name is that "it condemns every exponent of pragmatism to consume at least half an hour of his limited time in explaining the word." Schiller himself employs the term "humanism" instead which being less novel is less disturbing to the conventional mind but on the other hand has the serious disadvantage of having been applied to a very different thing, namely, the spirit of the Renaissance. Since C. S. Peirce who invented…
More questions about this book
- Slosson describes his discovery of pragmatism as realizing he had been a pragmatist "all his life without knowing it." How would you explain pragmatism as Slosson seems to understand it, using his experiences in journalism and chemistry to illustrate its core principles to someone entirely unfamiliar with the philosophy?
- The text opens with a Mohammedan proverb emphasizing the recognition of contemporary "prophets," yet later presents F. C. S. Schiller's view that the world knows its greatest men only after they have ceased to be greatest. How might Slosson reconcile these two seemingly contradictory ideas when selecting and portraying his "Six Major Prophets," and what implicit criteria might he be using?
- G. B. Shaw's quote critiques the "impertinence" of writing about individuals who have already written about themselves. Given Slosson's dedication acknowledging his son's incorporated thoughts and his own role as a literary editor, how might this critique challenge or inform Slosson's own approach to biographical writing in "Six Major Prophets"?
- Consider the collective impact of the dedication to Slosson's son, the Mohammedan proverb, and the G. B. Shaw quote as the opening elements of the book. What overarching tone or intellectual challenge do these elements establish for the reader, and how might they influence how one approaches the "prophets" Slosson introduces?