Anyway, pragmatism.

Yes, maybe if I tell you where I struggle you can give me a point at which to
dive into the unknown, so I can personally, and 'professionally' get a clearer picture.

So let me start off by throwing at you something I wrote decently late one night when I couldnt turn
my mind off. It might well be nonsense, but this idea is whats been nagging or bugging me. I will
hopefully clarify for not only you, but myself as well. I also wrote this in the first person (inflated
sense of my philosophical abilities?) so for humanitys benefit I translated it to seem less personal:

At the very least, when all is said and done with pragmatism, one must admit a certain
objectivity. That objectivity being 'conversation' or in philosophically pretentious jargon:
discourse. Because, at the end of the day no one can convince someone else that social progress
is worth it - almost in any sense - or even what social progress entails. Nor can one convince
someone else that a sense of community is an end that we should all strive for either. Still
more surprisingly, one cannot claim that lessening suffering for more people is what we should
all be after.

All that one can claim (or beg for) is to keep the conversation going. This, then, relies on the
exact skills sophism was denounced for by almost all of Western philosophy during and after
Socrates: rhetoric, jargon, smoothness of argument, etc. If conversation and communication is all
Dewey and Rorty were after (to a degree), then naturally they would align themselves more with
a tradition of rhetoric and persuasion rather than Reason and Truth. But this doesnt fall out of
step with pragmatism, because pragmatism doesnt have anything else to hold up to say Here,
this is what we are after while pointing to some specific value like community or love. All
they can say is that we need to continue to keep the conversation going, indeed, Rorty (and
others not necessarily explicitly pragmatist) thought that we actually could head in a bad
direction or even cause the destruction of ourselves. Contrary to popular belief that our society
is invincible. This existential doomsday could be brought about by either a) the conversation
stopping i.e. ceasing to widen our sense of right and wrong or conversely admitting we found
Right and Wrong). Or b) by the wrong people using rhetoric and sophistry to masterfully
persuade, even if said ideas are poisonous by social standards (thinking here of Hitler/MLK
comparison - both charismatic, experts of speech, knowledgeable. But only one used this for
good so to speak). The pragmatist cannot account for this latter potential disaster, all they can
do is hope that it doesnt happen.

The point is this: that communication, in all its forms, are all we should, indeed all we can, strive
for. But isnt this too a certain objectivity or Truth i.e. Conversation is Truth. Or is this
objectivity dirtied by the idea that this ongoing conversation can actually lead to harmful
outcomes; something the pragmatist admits. In other words, when we find Truth or Objective
knowledge it will be perfect, god-like, so it cannot possibly error.
It is when the conversation stops, when you stop listening to me or I stop listening to you that
the world might as well stop too, but this was entire possible for the pragmatists due to their
unwillingness to point toward anything other than a loosely defined, ambiguous goal.

So this is what keeps me up at night; funny eh? So I guess my point was that in the same vein that
the pragmatist cannot say that a cosmopolitan world is what we are after, how can one say that
communication or conversation or connection-making is the end game. Is it because the pragmatists
see conversation and communication as vehicles and not necessarily destinations (since the
destination is always open-ended)? The same goes for Rortys belief in sympathy and his definition of
morality being simply taking more peoples needs into account than you did previously. Which I like
by the way. But when pressed on the issue, he does not respond as to why this is the goal or why
recognizing the suffering of others is the goal. He simply says he is a social philosopher (like Dewey)
and the only justification he needs is in the real, concrete effects of holding such beliefs. Which
retrospectively speaking I think he is somewhat right: his philosophy would probably gain a
justification if we all felt a little more sympathetic and compassionate seeing as that would probably
lead to the lessening of suffering for more people, and possibly a better world.

Similarly, I think this is why pragmatism fails to get people on board with its philosophy: most
everyone is striving toward some end, concrete goal like heaven, goodness, beauty, etc. Pragmatism,
in a way, cannot pass judgement on any of these fluid fallibilistic ideas unless proven on the field of
battle so to speak (and they will still admit in its fallibility!). What a pity! :)

Im sorry if this is a jumbled mess, but hopefully I clarified where I personally get caught up with the
philosophy of Rorty and pragmatism. On another note, just read about Oakeshotts civitas peregrina

...an association, not of pilgrims traveling to a common destination, but of adventurers each
responding as best he can to the ordeal of consciousness in a world composed of others of his kind,
each the inheritor of the imaginative achievements of those who have gone before and joined in a
variety of prudential practices, but here partners in a practice of civility the rules of which are not
devices for satisfying substantive wants and whose obligations create no symbiotic relationship.

Oakeshott you pragmatist you! Beautifully said, too. Im sure an Oakeshottian like yourself would be
offended by me calling him this, so I will give you a compliment. I think this, rather than Peirces
pragmatic maxim, should instead be the pragmatic maxim.