Abstract--The purpose of this paper is to examine the philosophical arguments regarding pragmatism and determinism. The article presents a personal opinion on the debate between them, arguing that pragmatism is preferable.
Sliding Doors is one of the movies that made me laugh, cry and concentrate. Determinism, the philosophical doctrine that lives go by destiny, is an integral theme of it. In the movie, a small, seemingly insignificant act makes dramatic changes in a woman’s life. Nonetheless, as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that some fundamental aspects of the main character's life, which are told in parallel stories, remain the same, suggesting some role for determinism. The movie motivates us to ponder upon an age-old philosophical question about whether people's destinies are predetermined or subject to their own free will. Comparing and contrasting the opinions of determinists and pragmatists, the latter would be preferable for me. If I have to choose one to label myself, then I am a pragmatist, who believes in that human is indeed capable of a certain degree of freedom and self-determination (Spinoza, 2000). My argument for this view goes as follows.
First, determinists overlook the ability of human beings to make decisions and plan for their future. From my point of view, the main difference between pragmatists and determinists is that pragmatists are directly involved in making decisions about their lives, while determinists believe that they have no choice but to follow the direction that has been set before them. As T. Fuller stated, “Life is just a series of trying to make up your mind.” Since I truly believe that we have the genuine ability to make decisions and to shape our own lives, I should be classified as a pragmatist. I am always looking towards the future and making short and long term goals for my career and education. In my sophomore year, I decided to be a communication professional and make communication my life career. In the following years, I made several important decisions based on my career goal. If we accept the argument of determinists that there is no fork in the path to the future, then people do not need to contemplate which path to take and where to go. Nobody will be on the horns of a dilemma. It is obvious that this is not the case in our real lives because we often face many choices, some of which may change our lives significantly. So, good decision-making and careful blueprinting are an essential part of our lives. Moreover, when people are too dependent on prior conditions such that their actions are greatly limited, they do not have the motivation to change their lifestyles even though they are dissatisfied with them. Sadly this seems to result in a less meaningful life.
The second reason why I dispute determinists is that they ignore the role that hard work plays in success. It's human nature that everyone is eager for success. Undoubtedly, the importance of hard work in any success should not be disregarded. A five-year study ever reported in the Los Angeles Times of 120 of the nation’s top artists, athletes and scholars has concluded that drive and hard work, not great natural talent, led to their extraordinary success. This example is consistent with Russian Chemist Mendeleyer’s idea that “Genius only means hard-working all one’s life”. In my incessant efforts to create a better future, I learnt that success not only comes from prudent decisions and careful planning but also relies on honest hard to reach them. Determinists may argue that every aspect of their lives is the inevitable consequence of antecedents. If we assume deterministic grounds were true, then one may have an excuse for lazing away his life. Any effort would make no difference so that there’s no sense in hard work, thus we will lose lots of chances to reach a level of success.
Third, what is also worth noticing is that determinism leaves no room for morality. The debate between pragmatism and determinism has long been a part of moral discussion of whether individuals can be considered morally responsible for their actions. Pragmatists advocate that a man should be responsible for what he did since he has free will. An interpretation of free will is the idea that our decisions or actions are our own responsibility as we have chosen to take them. If we make bad decisions we will have to live with the consequences instead of excusing ourselves with an “I could not help it” remark.
The essential part of morality is the worthiness of praise and blame. However, it does not seem right to praise or blame someone for something they did that was beyond their control. Determinists therefore ignore their moral responsibility and primarily concentrate on the effect of previous events or cause on the current event. For example, when a person misbehaves with others, determinists would focus on study the causes of his behavior rather than how to correct it.
Finally, as a student of communication, I would like to explain my viewpoint from a communication perspective. When thinking about speaking-listening process, it is commonly believed by determinists that listeners only passively receive the message sent from speakers. If we look at this issue from a pragmatistic view, however, listening is also an active process. In response to a message, the listener is humanly obliged to make hermeneutic efforts, that is, he or she tries to understand the speaker’s verbal and nonverbal languages, compares the ideas to his or her earlier perceptions about them and to his or her own beliefs and attitudes, and makes a judgment of whether he or she should continue or disconnect the conversation. All the analysis confirms a sound idea that listeners help build meaning. Thus, each conversation participant, either the speaker or the listener, is an active part of a communication process. They do have certain autonomy of choices to reach their own communication goals through controlling the dynamic process.
The movie Sliding Doors clearly nods its head to fate. It really made me think about how important the role that fate has to play in our lives. Keeping the views given above in mind, I would firmly to say that I am a pragmatist rather than a determinist, that is, I am not an actor in a pre-scripted play but the writer, director and actor of an ongoing miracle play.
Reference
Spinoza, B. (2000, edited and translated by Parkinson, G. H. R.). Ethics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
