Pragmatism and Nihilism

Posted on July 2, 2010
Filed Under Peirce, Philosophy | 4 Comments

NewImage.jpgPeter Lawler had an interesting post on the Civil War up at Postmodern Conservative. I’m never sure how to deal with these counterfactual investigations of major past events. So speculating on the ramifications of the South winning are hard for me. That said, clearly some low probability events happen that significantly shape history. And just because they happened rather than what was most likely has to be considered when deciding on actions. The wisest course of action is usually to be on what is most likely but prepare for unlikely events. Unfortunately there’s a tendency to look at everything in the past as a high probability event and react accordingly.

None of that is really what I want to comment on though. Peter has a throw-away line that caught my eye:

A big thought after the war: Was it worth it? That thought, as Louis Menand shows, was a cause of the moral nihilism of our pragmatism and Social Darwinism etc.

Now I’m not sure which work by Menand it is that Peter is thinking of. I’d guess it is probably The Metaphysical Club. Unfortunately it’s been years since I last read it. I just can’t recall Menand making a claim about the nihilism of pragmatism. I know some at Peirce-L had some qualms over a few of Menand’s claims about Peirce but that one never came up that I can see. Which isn’t to say he doesn’t claim nihilism either there or in some other writing. Just that I don’t recall.

If he does he’s clearly wrong. I think a case could be made for problems in so-called neo-pragmatism (although even Rorty was willing at the end to abandon that term). But the main pragmatists? Especially Peirce and James? I don’t buy it. For one Peirce was a moral realist although there is an element of the “coming into being” of values through the evolution of signs in Peirce. I think if one takes that as nihilism though one is just plain wrong.

The typical place I see moral nihilism applied to the pragmatists is via a poor reading of William James. The idea goes that since all that counts is the “cash value” of beliefs there is no absolute to ground our beliefs. The error in this is that James still does embrace Peirce’s conception of “in the long run.” He might (as does Peirce) accept that our beliefs are ultimately non-volitional and all we have to go on. But when either Peirce or James talk about what works the working is conceived of in more realist terms. It’s just not the nearly solipsistic position that folks read back into it. As Peirce puts it our ideas progress because reality keeps hitting us and adjusting our beliefs. Eventually we converge on a stable belief which is tied to the truth.

Anyway, it’s a curious comment and I’m not quite sure how to take it.

The other issue is the influence of the civil war on pragmatism proper. But I don’t feel qualified to really speak on that.

Edit. I went on Amazon to do a search inside The Metaphysical Club. He has Chauncey Wright being a nihilism but James’ pragmatism being Wright’s ideas “without the nihilism and it was entirely appealing to James.” (219) Of course James wrote an essay “Against Nihilism” where he attacks Wright. There’s no other reference to nihilism in the book that I can see. Peter might be thinking of some other work by Menand though.

Related posts:

  1. Heidegger on Dewey
  2. Philosophy Talk
  3. The Pragmatism of Simple Agents
  4. The Politics of Pragmatism
  5. Best OOO Papers and Books?
  6. Will to Believe and Context

Comments

4 Responses to “Pragmatism and Nihilism”

Clark, I recall the connection being made (rather obliquely) in The Metaphysical Club in the discussion of Oliver Wendell Holmes. His experience in the Civil War — he served with distinction and was wounded several times — supposedly contributed to his pragmatic approach to the law. I don’t recall the term “nihilist” being applied to Holmes by Menand, but he did suggest there were no overarching moral values guiding his jurisprudence.

Menand also did a chapter on Holmes in his book American Studies — some of what I remember could have come from that chapter rather than the discussion in Metaphysical Club.

I believe that strictly speaking, pragmatism and nihilism are incompatible. Pragmatism is “what works”. Things work more than once only due to coincidence or some underlying principle. If you rely on underlying principles, you aren’t a complete nihilist. A moral nihilist maybe. But not an absurdist or an anti-realist. So I tend to to think that the claim that pragmatism is nihilist in nature is rubbish.

In trying to grapple with these terms in looked up nihilism in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They make a connection between nihilism and antifoundationalism (with specific reference to Rorty).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

I think that Lawler is using nihilism in a rather loose sense. Additionally, I think that conservatives like Lawler view American pragmatism as a radical and relativistic project.

I a puzzled that he would group pragmatism with Social Darwinism. While both arise in the US during the post-Civil War era, I view pragmatism as a theoretical response to Social Darwinism.

It’s odd conservatives do that in that there are quite a few conservative pragmatists – including Peirce. While Dewey was of course a big mover in the early progressive movement I don’t think pragmatism and conservativism are at odds in the least.

I should also note that “pragmatist” as a boogey-man since the Reagan years has a different sense than it does in the movement proper. Although I suppose ultimately one can see pragmatism as anti-dogma whereas a lot of conservativism is more concerned about idealism without necessarily achieving anything. (One could say that about the left too where often it seems like saying the right things are more important than actually doing anything)

Leave a Reply