I'm finding myself so affected by the idea of pragmatism that it's difficult to restrict myself to the question at hand--that is, what pragmatism has to do with the ordinary. On the one hand, I want to say that pragmatism gives primary importance to the ordinary--the everyday--where previously it was given only secondary attention (particularly, James notes, by Idealists). But on the other hand, it is not an absolute external world which is pragmatically considered, for that would be empiricism, but instead the relationship between the subject and the world. This resistance to detaching a subject from his world is reminiscent of Heidegger, although I think Heidegger is otherwise not very pragmatic, despite being both existential and phenomenological. But I will stop myself here since, as I suspected, I am already straying off topic.
It is difficult to say anything definitely about pragmatism, because there is no thought that is inherently and statically pragmatic; it is thoroughly dependent on its practice. This volatility, this dependence on individualism, is almost un-philosophical; I mean this in the sense that what is pragmatic for me may not be pragmatic for anyone else. But philosophy aims at universality. Can one speak both pragmatically and universally? I am straying again.
Let's see. Pragmatism relates to the ordinary because its only concern is how I interact with the world, specifically and generally. "What difference does it make, whether Orion is up there in heaven, or some god paints the image in the firmament of the soul? ... it is alike useful and alike venerable to me." --Emerson, "Nature"
Dear Noelle,
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading the comment that you left on my post, and I felt the need to add to it, reply to it, tell you how much I enjoyed it, etc., upon your own post.
You make a wonderful point in that comment, that a show is only important if there is an audience to view it. What is the point of Austin spewing forth his Aryan philosophy, or Zack's letters to dear Angelo, or Jade speaking to the reporter, or Jared earning a Pulitzer, if there is no one in the audience to hear about it all? I mean, you and I and everyone else in the cast have heard it a hundred times by now, to the point where we can recite it all ourselves easily enough, but without an audience, why bother telling the story?
And now, on a different, yet somewhat similar note, as I walked my route above the audience tonight, staring across the theater at all of the prisoners in their cells and guards walking back and forth in front of them, I began to think about William James and his ideas of pragmatism. I watched as each of these people that I have gotten to know over the past few weeks took on completely different personalities, and chose to think in a different way than how they normally would. After all, Bucky does not usually call after Brittney as she walks by, nor does Jake practice cannibalism in real life (or so I hope). Austin does not really believe in white supremacy, and Richard (Russell) does not actually speak Spanish (at all). However, each one of these people have chosen to change their personalities to fit that of the "world of the play." In changing their personalities to fit the play, each person develops a new idea of "truth" for themselves. Without that new idea of truth, a play like "Coyote on a Fence" would not be possible to put on, due to the content of the play (which I will try not to give away anymore of, in case anyone in the class would like to come and see the show this weekend).
Now, because this has really just been a ramble that I am not sure makes any sense whatsoever considering I am writing this at 12:30 in the morning (I know, I'm late and I'm sorry for it), I will end this with a quote from dear William James (he used to joke he had a reversible name: William James, James William):
"I am well aware how odd it must seem to some of you to hear me say that an idea is "true" so long as to believe it is profitable to our lives. That it is good, for as much as it profits, you will gladly admit" (pg. 108). Our "ideas," created for "Coyote," certainly have become a truth for us all, and they have certainly been very profitable for the run of this show.
Peace,
Officer Small
PS: I hope Aaron does not tell you a joke that makes you believe it is time for the next light-cue, and nearly gives you both heart attacks because of it, again. Other than that, tonight's run went incredibly well, I am happy to say. Let us hope that they all can run as smoothly.
This has officially been my favorite blog exchange ever. Also, Cassidy, my heart is warmed by your calling him "dear William James." He is a dear, isn't he? Alfred North Whitehead, the philosopher/mathematician called him "that adorable genius."
Delete