What’s my beef with utilitarianism and pragmaticism?
Utility and practicality is entirely interpretative for starters being that existence is a relative one beyond the semantical absurd rantings of people claiming ridiculous notions of absolutes.
In institutions guided by utilitarianism or pragmaticism I find that they support many absurd notions which they call practical.
If you should question their absurd notions that they feed into the public everyday they might reply:
“Well what you say might be true in that our level of institutions and what we feed into the public could indeed be absurd but these absurd notions of ours work in that even though they are not perfect they are indeed utilitarian or pragmatic in practical working usage.”
So with utilitarianism or pragmaticism we can have imperfect systemizations and absurd notions fed into the public yet praise them because they simply work cohesively.
Whoever calls utilitarianism or pragmaticism systemizations of change and “progress” may need to self evaluate themselves.
The absurdity of utilitarianism or pragmaticism is that you can have any absurd notion proclaimed to be the “improvement” of man even if it is ridiculous and absurd because in the utilitarian’s eye along with the pragmatic man if the subject into question cohesively works it is gold.
It would seem that the utilitarian or the pragmaticist isn’t so much concerned with realism and relevance but is more concerned with cohesion no matter what absurd repercussions may be of consequence.
I view utilitarianism as a moral philosophy that I’m not fond of. Pragmatism on the other hand…
I’m not understanding your objection to it.
For example let’s say this, “I have a cat named Sally.” The following statements are ‘true’, because they are practical:
[b]My sentence is based in the English language.
I am learned in writing an English sentence.
You are learned in reading an English sentence.
Sentences are composed of words.
I have a concept of what a ‘cat’ is that is probably similar to yours.
My cat’s name is “Sally”.[/b]
This is what pragmatism is based off of–practicality. If you want to take a jack hammer to that foundation of philosophy Joker, then I salute you. It’ll be just as difficult as annihilating the whole of civilization in my opinion.
We as humans have done well ensuring our own survivability, in both the material and ideological sense.
Heh-heh.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learned
adj - “having much knowledge; scholarly; erudite: learned professors.”
Us humans?
Are you an alien Pandora?
You’re confuzzling me. 
Utilitarianism is flawed in ways that are easily explained. But for the most part, with some common sense, we can view it as the idea that we should take whichever actions we believe would result in the greatest utilty. Like more money, or more people thinking we’re cool or whatever.
Pragmatism is basically the idea that you should do whatever works. It may be hard to prove that you know what will work in alot of cases, so there’s some trickiness to it in that respect.
Neither of these things are inherently associated with any particular social viewpoint.
It’s like this…
If you do something, and you think that doing it will work, and you hope that by it working that you’ll be better off, then you’re already acting under utilitarian and pragmatic pretenses.
Does that seem right?
Almost–utilitarians are actually concerned about what’s right for themselves and for the highest quantity for other people.
Not all utilitarians.
You were using an object pronoun as a subject. (I thought you would catch that).
Snap! It looks like I needed a comma or something. My ignorance has been exposed… 
I never did take any grammar courses throughout my life though… 
EDITED–there all better (or just wishful thinking).
My point is that under the same cicumstances somthing so absurd would be embraced merely because it works and is cohesive because such systemizations disregard realism or relevance for quantitative cohesion instead.
Both systemizations do not concern themselves with quality but instead only rely on quantitative measures.
I’m going to construct a example of where I’m going with this:
If for some odd reason society decided to force everyone to wear the color orange everyday rather absurdly by coercion of law with enforcement where it helped to convey some sense of uniformity or cohesion in a brave new world manner both utilitarianism along with pragmaticism would praise the result for it’s utility within a practical application.
Now is this situational scenario above, absurd? You bet it is but since quantity along with cohesion of things working together is the only goal of utilitarianism along with pragmaticism such a absurdity will be praised because both systemizations do not care about realism or relevance of a given issue and subject.
In a utilitarian or pragmatic mind if somthing works, it works and nothing more.
In a utilitarian or pragmatic mind, nevermind if the issue at hand is absurd so long as it works cohesively by enforcement.
Thus at the end of the day quantity is put over all forms of relevant quality.
It seems to me like you’re confusing ‘utilitarianism’ and ‘pragmatism’.
Pragmatism by definition cannot hold lofty ideals and goals. The purpose of this philosophical ideology runs along the lines of how math fits within science–pragmatism fits within philosophy. Pragmatism is only about practical application. Without a level of practicality, people aren’t even going to agree on the color ‘orange’ in the first place.
What I am trying to say is that’s part of the problem with Pragmaticism.
Since it cannot hold on to anything it has no room to be concerned with realism or relevance of a issue and subject.
Instead it only concerns itself with a indifferent approach to practicality itself even if the issue and subject it embraces in practice is absurd.
And since utilitarianism is only concerned with utility it practically does the same thing.
Utilitarianism And Pragmaticism in a nutshell:
Both are only concerned with how things works in cohesion.
Both pay no heed to why things work or why two given structures “should” and “shouldn’t” act together.
It is like they are only concerned with the mechanics and quantity of a subject but at the same time pay no attention to the relevance or quality of a issue upon understanding realism.
Both are not so much concerned with realism as much as they are concerned with the mechanics and functioning of a sequence of events.
Well, if you’re looking for a qualitative philosophy (not that I’m assuming you are), it’s going to be hard to find. You’ll be getting into philosophy of language/poetics.
I’m all for that.
And I think your point is this joker–all philosophical ideologies are absurd? Sure, I would grant you that, but what is the result of this realization? Practicality still serves its same use.
As for utilitarianism… that philosophy just puts me off due to its moral beliefs of “the greater good–what is best for all is the best”.