Editorial
Deciphering Paul Krugman
It is hardly ever explicit in Paul Krugman's columns except that he has made it clear that he is a pragmatist and finds all ideologues off base. But what is an ideologue to Krugman? Someone who invokes principles as he or she thinks and copes with the real world. That's, however, infantilism for any serious or radical pragmatist.
Both President Obama and Professor Krugman have made it abundantly clear that they consider ideological thinking misguided. Serious, radical pragmatists regard such thinking as unfounded – a species of foundationalism, something to be avoided since it involves imposing on the messy world an order it doesn't have.
The foremost architect of this radical pragmatism was Harvard philosopher C. I. Lewis. In his massive work, Mind and The World Order (Dover 1941), he lays out the case for the view that even logic is something we invent and do not learn from studying reality. (Another famous proponent of this line of thinking was Columbia University philosopher Ernest Nagel – he made out this position in his famous paper, "Logic Without Ontology," reprinted in Readings in Philosophical Analysis, edited by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars. [New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1949]. More recently the late Richard Rorty, a very famous academic philosopher from Princeton University and several other prominent places, defended radically unprincipled thinking. I don't know if Krugman and Rorty had been philosophical pals but it would not come as a surprise to learn that they had.)
One thing all this implies is that when one reads Paul Krugman one cannot criticize him tellingly by pointing out that he is inconsistent – e.g., that his serious scholarly work doesn't jive with what he writes in his columns, or that last week's column contradicts this week's or last year's this morning's.
That Krugman does not announce this to the readers of his columns in The New York Times and articles in other publications, such as The New York Review of Books, is perfectly understandable. Most readers tend to have respect for logic – it is one way people tend to judge others, trip up prevaricators in law courts and criticize the scientific and scholarly work of those who write and speak out on vital topics. On innumerable occasions many will find a political candidate, president, or international figure criticized for being inconsistent. But that assumes, for Krugman, an ideology of consistency which radical pragmatists see as entirely artificial.
From very early on in the history of human thought it was accepted that logic is the first device to be used in aiming for understanding and in offering criticism – all of Plato's Socratic dialogues adhere to this. Students at colleges and universities are constantly chided for being inconsistent. Everyone is, in fact. Except by serious pragmatists, at least the radical variety of them. And the reason isn't very complicated to grasp.
Pragmatism grew out of a disenchantment many philosophers had with principled thinking. Indeed, throughout most of the history of philosophy the effort to come up with a solid, principled viewpoint hasn't always met with welcome reception. Reasons for this vary but the result is that at least for the better part of the late 19th and early 20th centuries many philosophers not only gave up the idea that logic is a good guide to thinking about the world but they went on to develop what they called alternative logics. This was a big debate back then and many pragmatists took the side of those who rejected classical logic except as a kind of human invention, like the rules of chess or baseball.
When one understands this – and the story is, of course, more complicated in its details – one can also understand Professor Paul Krugman's way of thinking about public affairs: The ideologues are clueless, thinking that their well thought out theories will help with that task. They will not, or so Krugman & Co., including our president, believe. And at the level of punditry they will not bother to explain this, try to defend it, but merely dish it out in whatever forum will feature them.
Yes, of course, pragmatism is not all that prominent, especially in the West, since most of Western thinking is influenced by Socrates, Plato and, especially, Aristotle, all firm proponents of the importance of a solidly grounded science of logic. Many others throughout human history have followed suit, one way or another, except for a few such as Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Sartre. But even these at least had respect for logical thinking, as they understood it.
Not so with the serious pragmatist Paul Krugman. And readers of him need to keep this in mind.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by DarbyJie on 06/14/11 04:00 PM
@ Wayne,
"Another site that you might enjoy! "
Many thanks; looks interesting! :)
 |
Posted by Wayne on 06/13/11 10:00 PM
With all respect to Dr. Machan, you might want to see this!
Click to view link
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/13/11 09:57 PM
Without proven principles, and sound logic, we would never get anywhere.
"Pragmatism, on the other hand, is for the birds."
Pragmatism can easy be just another word for moral relativism, which, as we both know, is the doom of Civilization as we know it. And even Civilization
is subject to more than one defintion.
Perhaps it's easiest to just say something is either life enhancing for many, or it's not. At least that's my take on this.
|
Posted by DarbyJie on 06/13/11 10:50 AM
Hi,
Hmm. "Define Equality!"??
Well, I could but it would not be relevant to anything I've written so far nor to the point I was making. I do believe it's clear as day that--in the context at hand--the very famous Jefferson quote from the Declaration of Independence--it simply meant every single person lucky enough to be born has the right to cherish and preserve his life. Simple and true, no?
Because: Context is all. If you always view things within their context you will find **much less confusion** with regard to meanings. Despite Mr. Machan's rambling, and lack of respect for logic, this world would be a lost and sorry place without it.
Now THERE's something worth thinking, and writing, about.
Pragmatism, on the other hand, is for the birds.
I appreciate your reply, and do thank you.
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/13/11 01:48 AM
" Do you actually dispute the idea that "all men are created equal"? If so, please expand on this*,as I've never before run into an argument of this nature."
This is a question of semantics.And is much of the the current problem we face.
Define Equality!
If one takes it to mean we are all born, and then die, of course we are equal. If means that we are all equal under the law, and a uniform standard must be applied to all, then yes, we are equal, or should be.
If one takes it to mean that all should have the opportunity to better themselves, and be allowed to excercise the skills they have, then we had better be equal, or we really are hurting everybody.
However, if one takes it to mean than all are guaranteed equality of results,then I say humbug. Everyone is different when it comes to standards, motivation, natural talents, etc.
Equality of opportunity, and equality of results are two entirely different concepts. The first is the sign of the Free Market, the latter the sign of collectivism.
Funny how both concepts use the term equality. Hence the confusion.
We hold these truths to be self evident.... implies no obligation to be beholden to another.
I treat you as a freeman, and you treat me as a freeman, as we were actually born free.
That's my take on this concept.
|
Posted by DarbyJie on 06/12/11 03:55 PM
Thanks for the link.:) However I'm suffering from a great surfeit of rabbit holes, and am more interested in rational avenues of thought,ie, nothing of the dreaded "postmodern" persuasion, for example..ugh!
Re Jefferson, the DOI, and equality-I am quite amazed (or, I have
misunderstood you). Do you actually dispute the idea that "all men are created equal"? If so, please expand on this*,as I've never before run into an argument of this nature.
*if you can.
Ciao * regards.
 |
Posted by David_Robertson on 06/12/11 01:13 PM
Then he said to them all, 'If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it benefit a person if he gains the whole world but loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you most certainly, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God.' (Luke 9:23-27)
Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot, people were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be the same on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, anyone who is on the roof, with his goods in the house, must not come down to take them away, and likewise the person in the field must not turn back. Remember Lot's wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.' (Luke 17:28-35)
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/12/11 02:29 AM
Never confuse a wish with a rational thought might be the lesson!
But many today apparently believe that the wish is the thought!
Go Figure!
 |
Posted by s1lver on 06/12/11 02:18 AM
Tibor(where does that name come from?)Machan,
Concerning your article on Krugman and his own reality.........I knew there was something missing!!! After Aristotle.........his most thoughtful student, admirer, Ayn Rand. If you mention Bill Clinton I don't see how you would not think of 'that depends on the meaning of the word is', and go from there to Ayn Rand's basic principle, revived from Aristotle: A is A. To me that pretty much says it, contrary to the idea that that is blase' or redundant. Even if you are of the thought that things can be changed, you first have to recognize and know what that thing is in order to change it. In my opinion, for all those that believe reality can be what they want it to be, first maneuver your mind around this basic idea that Aristotle felt it important enough to iterate and Ayn Rand reiterate.
|
Posted by DarbyJie on 06/12/11 12:54 AM
...that All men are created EQUAL.
But Heck-what did they know?? ;-)
They just *thought* they were thinking, is that what some here believe?
tsk.
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/11/11 11:55 PM
In his foreword to Max Jammer's Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. xi-xii, Einstein made the following profound observation:
'...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted.
...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them.'
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/11/11 10:36 PM
"That's why only a few percent of any of the people in any given field are any good at it.'
Approx 2-5% are competent.
The rest are merely able to talk about the subject!
|
Posted by Avatar on 06/11/11 09:23 PM
We hold these truths to be self evident....
.jpg) |
Posted by Kriss Robin on 06/11/11 05:48 PM
"The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
THANK YOU DAVID.
The only devil is the human mind.
There is no Truth in the "human mind". God is not in a devil, there is no devil in God. The human mind is a collection of good and bad memories that it calls time, backed up by a good story line, its been knowhere, it is going knowhere, because there is no Real reality to it, it is never Complete, always needy. Consciousness is the Only Complete Existence there Is. Know ThySelf is "the remembering" of One's True Nature. Not with a lying deceitful, two faced mind, that would not know Honesty if It looked it in the face. LOL
And beliefs are the foundation of the human mind. Back into Genesis there was talk of Adam being deceived, did he believe being naked was bad ? He became needy and so the story goes, and here we are. Did God tell him he was needy, or was it that talking snake, the deceitful one that is commonly known as the human mind. And did this ever stop God Being God, was God disturbed by this? And out of Eden now it seems we have so called evolved, but it is the same story with different props and actors.
God is Always God, Complete, with no religious connotations, Consciousness is Complete, God IS Consciousness Now, Safe and Secure, the Consciousness Being OneSelf. Dimensional reality is a very real looking and feeling existence, but the Existence Being the Consciousness Being OneSelf is not relative, Consciousness Being Your conscious awareness is UN- dimensional. The only difference is, is one of Perception. There was a line in Scripture somewhere, it went something like this, 'one has to loose one's life to find Life', it may have been John, he said some interesting things. Until God is Accepted as the Only Life there Is, there will always seem to be a battle going on, inwardly and outwardly. And always, it seems God Shines through.
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/11/11 04:58 PM
"In this context we can place the "black swan theory" or the theory of black swan events which remarks that "The event is a surprise (to the observer) and has a major impact. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight."
The rationalisation fits the event into previously held beliefs and modifies them in some minor way without changing the fundamental presuppositions. These latter are what Francis Bacon the Elizabethan philosopher called "idols" and what scripture calls "idols of the heart" . They are very difficult to dislodge, indeed without spiritual help it is impossible to do so. This means we can be continuously deceived and deceiving others even while being sincerely convinced of our truthfulness and righteousness."
Yep. The great Do Loop of humanity's intellectuality!
|
Posted by David_Robertson on 06/11/11 04:44 PM
"The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
This means that we cannot trust even the best of men whether pragmatists or ideologues since they are all deceived by their own minds. The only thing that can bring this truth home to us is experience. Yet even here it takes many experiences of the same nature to teach us that what we think and believe may not be true.
In this context we can place the "black swan theory" or the theory of black swan events which remarks that "The event is a surprise (to the observer) and has a major impact. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight."
The rationalisation fits the event into previously held beliefs and modifies them in some minor way without changing the fundamental presuppositions. These latter are what Francis Bacon the Elizabethan philosopher called "idols" and what scripture calls "idols of the heart" . They are very difficult to dislodge, indeed without spiritual help it is impossible to do so. This means we can be continuously deceived and deceiving others even while being sincerely convinced of our truthfulness and righteousness.
It is more than likely that Krugman and his fellow pragmatists have accepted their own deceitfulness and are able to lie without compunction. They then contribute to the store of deception in society and create the preponderance of lies and trickery that we witness.
|
Posted by John Danforth on 06/11/11 04:21 PM
Start by teaching kids from their youngest days that there are exceptions to the law of identity. Show them that they live in a world where they can't count on anything or anybody.
Then it's no surprise that most of society can't see through a ruse. They've been taught that they are incompetent to judge truth, incompetent to learn the simple rules of logic, that they can't trust their own brain, nor their senses, that reality itself is not knowable. It does a pretty decent job of keeping them quietly grinding along on their hamster wheels, insuring apathy and reflexive skepticism (about anything except the precepts they absorbed in childhood).
They can't know anything for sure, so they have to follow the advice of those who have secret knowledge inaccessible to them or those who speak for the majority so they can get comfort from following the crowd. The result is a feeling of powerlessness, a feeling that nothing matters much, the universe might wink out of existence tomorrow anyway. And everyone else is in the same boat too, so what the heck.
That's why only a few percent of any of the people in any given field are any good at it.
|
|
