Pragmatic Approach Quotes

If veganizing the world depends on each one of us choosing altruism over self-interest, then for the foreseeable future the world will be, at best, only partially vegan.

As in real life, complex engineering designs demand a pragmatic approach.

In going to the cross, Jesus was not being practical; he was being faithful. Jesus didn’t take a pragmatic approach to the problem of evil; Jesus took an aesthetic approach to the problem of evil. Jesus chose to absorb the ugliness of evil and turn it into something beautiful—the beauty of forgiveness.

When you're dealing with these forces or powers in a philosophic and scientific way, contemplating them from an armchair, that rationalistic approach is useful. It is quite profitable then to regard the gods and goddesses and demons as projections of the human mind or as unconscious aspects of ourselves. But every truth is a truth only for one place and one time, and that's a truth, as I said, for the armchair. When you're actually dealing with these figures, the only safe, pragmatic and operational approach is to treat them as having a being, a will, and a purpose entirely apart from the humans who evoke them. If the Sorcerer's Apprentice had understood that, he wouldn't have gotten into so much trouble.

I learned to be wary that summer of a pious approach to life that saw good intentions and righteous prayer as substitutes for planning and pragmatic action.

The revolution is not a question of virtue, but of effectiveness.

Proverbs takes a supremely pragmatic approach: “A wife of noble character who can find?” (31:10). This verse assumes that we are involved in a serious pursuit, actively engaging our minds to make a wise choice. And the top thing a young man should consider is this: “Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised” (Prov. 31:30).

It's easy to be a philosopher and say true things about the rights of animals. It's much harder to get your hands dirty and do the right things at the right time truly to make a difference. That's the art of high-impact advocacy.

The French had the more pragmatic approach: you married for social position, for money or property, for the perpetuation of family, but not for love. Love rarely survived marriage, and it was a foolish hypocrisy to pretend that it might.

The Quran did not put forward any philosophical arguments for monotheism; its approach was practical, and, as such, it appealed to the pragmatic Arabs. The old religion, the Quran claimed, was simply not working.3

Consider thinking of architectural decisions as investments and take into account the associated rate of return, it is a useful approach for finding out how pragmatic or fit for purpose every option on the table is.

This is the latest approach by antitheistic thinkers who seek to explain good and evil apart from God. Over the years naturalists first denied causality as an argument to prove God’s existence: Why do we have to have a cause? Why can’t the universe just be? Then they denied design as an argument for God’s existence: Why do we need a designer? Why could it not have all just come together with the appearance of design? Now they deny morality as an argument for God’s existence: Why do we need to posit a moral law or a moral law source? Why can’t it just be a pragmatic reality? This I find fascinating! They want a cause for suffering or a design for suffering, but they have already denied that either of these is necessary to account for every effect. This

The cultural and political backgrounds of the two sides diverge in important aspects. The American approach to policy is pragmatic; China’s is conceptual. America has never had a powerful threatening neighbor; China has never been without a powerful adversary on its borders. Americans hold that every problem has a solution; Chinese think that each solution is an admission ticket to a new set of problems. Americans seek an outcome responding to immediate circumstances; Chinese concentrate on evolutionary change. Americans outline an agenda of practical “deliverable” items; Chinese set out general principles and analyze where they will lead. Chinese thinking is shaped in part by Communism but embraces a traditionally Chinese way of thought to an increasing extent; neither is intuitively familiar to Americans. China

Perhaps it is better to conceptualize it this way: Everyone needs a concrete, specific goal—an ambition, and a purpose—to limit chaos and make intelligible sense of his or her life. But all such concrete goals can and should be subordinated to what might be considered a meta-goal, which is a way of approaching and formulating goals themselves. The meta-goal could be “live in truth.” This means, “Act diligently towards some well-articulated, defined and temporary end. Make your criteria for failure and success timely and clear, at least for yourself (and even better if others can understand what you are doing and evaluate it with you). While doing so, however, allow the world and your spirit to unfold as they will, while you act out and articulate the truth.” This is both pragmatic ambition and the most courageous of faiths.

If we try to walk in other people's shoes, I believe our anger will dissipate. This takes practice, but if you commit to it, it can become habitual. After a while, anger will show up less often and be all the more effective for its rarity. You'll also find it easier to reach out to people and help them.

Gin, often referred to as ‘Madam Geneva’ (and sometimes as ‘Kill-Grief’), was a national obsession. It had first arrived in England in the 1680s, along with William of Orange. Fifty years later, as many as one in ten London properties was a gin shop. According to official records, nearly 7 million gallons were consumed in 1730, and this figure excludes the vast quantities of low-grade gin sold from wheelbarrows, which was often adulterated with turpentine.7 The sale of spirits was officially prohibited in 1736, but the measure was so unsuccessful that prohibition was lifted seven years later, and a more pragmatic approach resulted in the Gin Act of 1751,

slowly but surely our societies are moving in the direction of more empathy and rationality, and that both individually and collectively we are becoming more ethical. Whether you share my belief or not, we have a choice on what we focus. Perhaps, as philosopher Karl Popper says, optimism is a moral duty because we can achieve more with a positive mindset.

Anything you do that’s traditional wolf territory could be challenged by some zealot, and you could wind up before the tribunal. I’ve been studying their decisions, and they tend to be led by their pragmatism. Our world is gray, and rapidly gray-ing, and the tribunal navigates it by sticking to a determinedly black-and-white approach. They rule by the book and can’t be swayed by emotion. If you don’t fit the exact letter of the law, they see you as going against it.” “So what do I do?” “You can’t break a law that doesn’t apply to you.” “Meaning?” “If you’re undocumented, you’re unwritten. Embrace that.” “You’re saying if no one’s told my story before ... I get to tell it the way I want?” “Exactly.

American approach to policy is pragmatic; China’s is conceptual. America has never had a powerful threatening neighbor; China has never been without a powerful adversary on its borders. Americans hold that every problem has a solution; Chinese think that each solution is an admission ticket to a new set of problems. Americans seek an outcome responding to immediate circumstances; Chinese concentrate on evolutionary change.

The clash was unsatisfactory to everybody. Therefore, the pragmatist claimed, we must reach a livable compromise. This approach puts the pragmatist on the side of the aggressor, though they don’t advocate aggression. As a criticism of pragmatism, you can say that it is totally amoral, and every amoral system is on the side of the immoral. But the pragmatist is impersonal about force. Someone wants to bash your skull in, reach a livable compromise: tell him to break one leg. [NFW 69]

The particular content of the idea was decidedly secondary. The ultimate utility of ideas is not their intrinsic truth but the extent to which they make a desired action possible—in Hitler’s case the destruction of your enemies, the attainment of glory, and the triumph of your race. This is important to keep in mind because Hitler’s ideological coherence left a great deal to be desired. His opportunism, pragmatism, and megalomania often overpowered any desire on his part to formulate a fixed ideological approach.

As calls rang out the world over for new treaties and organizations to be established with the intent of preventing future wars, America and her allies took a more realistic approach to the problem—we maintained allied military bases across Europe and Asia and we stationed troops in these foreign territories on a permanent basis. We weren’t invaders or conquerors and for sure we had no intention of being an empire. We were liberators. That’s all. But having fought and sacrificed so much and for so long, the pragmatic thing to do was to follow this simple philosophy: it’s great to have dialogue, it just works a lot better when you have a strong military strategically placed and ready to act around the globe.

In a profile of Robert Kennedy, Morgenthau explained how emotion, even in the best of causes, could obscure reason and rationality, and what he said about Kennedy applied to the student demonstrators as well: “Robert Kennedy was not reflective but emotional,” Morgenthau remarked. When he saw evil and suffering in the world, he felt he had to do something. “But since he was unaware of the ambiguity of moral judgments, he was also unaware of the moral and pragmatic ambiguity of the political act performed in emotional response to a moral judgment. His approach was morally fundamentalist and politically simplistic.” Much like the student protesters, many of whom became Kennedy followers after he came to share their passion about the war. Moral fundamentalism and perfectionism were their credo. Emotion, not reflection, determined a policy of resistance that was no-policy. Except for a shared opposition to the Vietnam war, the stern, Nietzschean, hyperintellectual Morgenthau and the idealistic, impassioned students had almost nothing in common. Their intellectual premises barely overlapped; their mind-sets functioned in different universes. As Morgenthau had written in Politics Among Nations, “A man who was nothing but ‘moral man’ would be a fool.” The students were “moral men” and proud of the fact. And then in 1968, as if to pound his point home, Morgenthau took a step that would have been incomprehensible to most of them. He came out in support of Richard Nixon for president.

Starting in the early 1970s, members of the PLO responded to these pressures, in particular to the urging of the Soviet Union, by floating the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in effect a two-state solution. This approach was notably promoted by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (which had split off from the PFLP in 1969), together with Syrian-backed groups, discreetly encouraged by the leadership of Fatah. Although there had been early resistance to the two-state solution by the PFLP and some Fatah cadres, in time it became clear that ‘Arafat, among other leaders, supported it. This marked the beginning of a long, slow process of shifting away from the maximalist objective of the democratic state, with its revolutionary implications, to an ostensibly more pragmatic aim of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, to be achieved via negotiations on the basis of SC 242.

The overwhelming consensus is that egalitarian social organization is the de-facto system for foraging societies in all environments. In fact, no other system could work for foraging societies. Compulsory sharing is simply the best way to distribute risk to everyone’s benefit: participation mandatory. Pragmatic? Yes. Noble? Hardly. We believe this sharing behavior extended to sex as well. A great deal of research from primatology, anthropology, anatomy, and psychology points to the same fundamental conclusion: human beings and our hominid ancestors have spent almost all of the past few million years or so in small, intimate bands in which most adults had several sexual relationships at any given time. This approach to sexuality probably persisted until the rise of agriculture and private property no more than ten thousand years ago. In addition to voluminous scientific evidence, many explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists support this view, having penned accounts rich with tales of orgiastic rituals, unflinching mate sharing, and an open sexuality unencumbered by guilt or shame.

In short the only fully rational world would be the world of wishing-caps, the world of telepathy, where every desire is fulfilled instanter, without having to consider or placate surrounding or intermediate powers. This is the Absolute's own world. He calls upon the phenomenal world to be, and it IS, exactly as he calls for it, no other condition being required. In our world, the wishes of the individual are only one condition. Other individuals are there with other wishes and they must be propitiated first. So Being grows under all sorts of resistances in this world of the many, and, from compromise to compromise, only gets organized gradually into what may be called secondarily rational shape. We approach the wishing-cap type of organization only in a few departments of life. We want water and we turn a faucet. We want a kodak-picture and we press a button. We want information and we telephone. We want to travel and we buy a ticket. In these and similar cases, we hardly need to do more than the wishing—the world is rationally organized to do the rest. But this talk of rationality is a parenthesis and a digression. What we were discussing was the idea of a world growing not integrally but piecemeal by the contributions of its several parts. Take the hypothesis seriously and as a live one. Suppose that the world's author put the case to you before creation, saying: "I am going to make a world not certain to be saved, a world the perfection of which shall be conditional merely, the condition being that each several agent does its own 'level best.' I offer you the chance of taking part in such a world. Its safety, you see, is unwarranted. It is a real adventure, with real danger, yet it may win through. It is a social scheme of co-operative work genuinely to be done. Will you join the procession? Will you trust yourself and trust the other agents enough to face the risk?" Should you in all seriousness, if participation in such a world were proposed to you, feel bound to reject it as not safe enough? Would you say that, rather than be part and parcel of so fundamentally pluralistic and irrational a universe, you preferred to relapse into the slumber of nonentity from which you had been momentarily aroused by the tempter's voice? Of course if you are normally constituted, you would do nothing of the sort. There is a healthy- minded buoyancy in most of us which such a universe would exactly fit. We would therefore accept the offer—"Top! und schlag auf schlag!" It would be just like the world we practically live in; and loyalty to our old nurse Nature would forbid us to say no. The world proposed would seem 'rational' to us in the most living way. Most of us, I say, would therefore welcome the proposition and add our fiat to the fiat of the creator. Yet perhaps some would not; for there are morbid minds in every human collection, and to them the prospect of a universe with only a fighting chance of safety would probably make no appeal. There are moments of discouragement in us all, when we are sick of self and tired of vainly striving. Our own life breaks down, and we fall into the attitude of the prodigal son. We mistrust the chances of things. We want a universe where we can just give up, fall on our father's neck, and be absorbed into the absolute life as a drop of water melts into the river or the sea. The peace and rest, the security desiderated at such moments is security against the bewildering accidents of so much finite experience. Nirvana means safety from this everlasting round of adventures of which the world of sense consists. The hindoo and the buddhist, for this is essentially their attitude, are simply afraid, afraid of more experience, afraid of life. And to men of this complexion, religious monism comes with its consoling words: "All is needed and essential—even you with your sick soul and heart. All are one

Jerry Fodor, a fierce critic of pragmatist approaches to mind and language, puts this sort of criticism in a nutshell when he says: “First the pragmatist theory of concepts, then the theory theory of concepts, then holism, then relativism. So it goes” (Fodor 1994, p. 111).

Despite these heady attractions, Dewey gradually drifted away from Hegel. Darwin replaced Hegel as a source of inspiration for the organic, dynamic, changing character of life. But the “subjective” factors that originally attracted Dewey to Hegel stayed with him throughout his life and deeply marked his own experimentalist version of pragmatism. Dewey, in effect, naturalized Hegel. Dewey’s concept of experience as a transaction that spans space and time, involving both undergoing and activity, shows the Hegelian influence. Subject and object are understood as functional distinctions within the dynamics of a unified developing experience. Like Hegel, Dewey is critical of all dualisms and the fixed dichotomies that have plagued philosophy, including mind and body as well as nature and experience. Dewey’s hostility to the merely formal and static was inspired by Hegel. Dewey, like Hegel, was alert to the role of conflicts in experience: how they are be overcome in the course of experience, and how new conflicts break out. Typically he approaches philosophical problems in a Hegelian manner by delineating opposing extremes, showing what is false about them, indicating how we can preserve the truth implicit in them, and passing beyond these extremes to a more comprehensive resolution.

MATERIAL SUBSTANCE was criticized by Berkeley with such telling effect that his name has reverberated through all subsequent philosophy. Berkeley's treatment of the notion of matter is so well known as to need hardly more than a mention. So far from denying the external world which we know, Berkeley corroborated it. It was the scholastic notion of a material substance unapproachable by us, BEHIND the external world, deeper and more real than it, and needed to support it, which Berkeley maintained to be the most effective of all reducers of the external world to unreality. Abolish that substance, he said, believe that God, whom you can understand and approach, sends you the sensible world directly, and you confirm the latter and back it up by his divine authority. Berkeley's criticism of 'matter' was consequently absolutely pragmatistic. Matter is known as our sensations of colour, figure, hardness and the like. They are the cash-value of the term. The difference matter makes to us by truly being is that we then get such sensations; by not being, is that we lack them. These sensations then are its sole meaning. Berkeley doesn't deny matter, then; he simply tells us what it consists of. It is a true name for just so much in the way of sensations. Locke, and later Hume, applied a similar pragmatic criticism to the notion of SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE. I will only mention Locke's treatment of our 'personal identity.' He immediately reduces this notion to its pragmatic value in terms of experience. It means, he says, so much consciousness,' namely the fact that at one moment of life we remember other moments, and feel them all as parts of one and the same personal history. Rationalism had explained this practical continuity in our life by the unity of our soul-substance. But Locke says: suppose that God should take away the consciousness, should WE be any the better for having still the soul-principle? Suppose he annexed the same consciousness to different souls, | should we, as WE realize OURSELVES, be any the worse for that fact? In Locke's day the soul was chiefly a thing to be rewarded or punished. See how Locke, discussing it from this point of view, keeps the question pragmatic: Suppose, he says, one to think himself to be the same soul that once was Nestor or Thersites. Can he think their actions his own any more than the actions of any other man that ever existed? But | let him once find himself CONSCIOUS of any of the actions of Nestor, he then finds himself the same person with Nestor. ... In this personal identity is founded all the right and justice of reward and punishment. It may be reasonable to think

Yet, if they repudiated the social dogmas of their time as artificial, abstract, and far removed from real life, their own approach to building the good society could hardly be called pragmatic or empirical. Visionary utopians, the anarchists paid scant attention to the practical needs of a rapidly changing world; they generally avoided careful analysis of social and economic conditions, nor were they able or even willing to come to terms with the inescapable realities of political power. For the religious and metaphysical gospels of the past, they substituted a vague messianism which satisfied their own chiliastic expectations; in place of complex ideologies, they offered simple action-slogans, catchwords of revolutionary violence, poetic images of the coming Golden Age. By and large, they seemed content to rely on "the revolutionary instincts of the masses" to sweep away the old order and "the creative spirit of the masses" to build the new society upon its ashes. "Through a Social Revolution to the Anarchist Future!" proclaimed a group of exiles in South America; the practical details of agriculture and industry "will be worked out afterwards" by the revolutionary masses. Such an attitude, though it sprang from a healthy skepticism towards the ideological "blueprints" and "scientific laws" of their Marxist adversaries, could be of little help in setting a course of action designed to revolutionize the world.

Where our ideas cannot copy definitely their object, what does agreement with that object mean? Some idealists seem to say that they are true whenever they are what God means that we ought to think about that object. Others hold the copy-view all through, and speak as if our ideas possessed truth just in proportion as they approach to being copies of the Absolute's eternal way of thinking. These views, you see, invite pragmatistic discussion. But the great assumption of the intellectualists is that truth means essentially an inert static relation. When you've got your true idea of anything, there's an end of the matter. You're in possession; you KNOW; you have fulfilled your thinking destiny. You are where you ought to be mentally; you have obeyed your categorical imperative; and nothing more need follow on that climax of your rational destiny. Epistemologically you are in stable equilibrium. Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?" The moment pragmatism asks this question, it sees the answer: TRUE IDEAS ARE THOSE THAT WE CAN ASSIMILATE, VALIDATE, CORROBORATE AND VERIFY. FALSE IDEAS ARE THOSE THAT WE CANNOT. That is the practical difference it makes to us to have true ideas; that, therefore, is the meaning of truth, for it is all that truth is known-as.

A pragmatic approach is more rewarding and virtuous.

Pragmatic and clever, he was quite Machiavellian in his approach: “It is better to be feared than loved,” he’d say. “Hide your vulnerabilities . . .” “Pick your own time and place for confrontations . . .” “Be truthful but not offensive.

The overwhelming influence of technology in our lives prods us to scan the horizon for approaching events, evaluate their respective worth and prioritize them based on some cost/benefit model. Pragmatism has become the culture’s sadistic and malevolent god, and he demands ever-increasing allegiance and worship.

we are serious as a nation about addressing violence and its consequences, we have to acknowledge that relying only on incarceration (or any single tool, for that matter) is not an adequate response, either morally or practically. To secure the safety of survivors and communities, we will need to implement interventions that can transform the behavior of people who have caused harm. Doing so will require an honest grappling with the limitations of our current approaches and an openness to solutions that can produce better results. And it will require prioritizing pragmatism over emotion and safety over politics in a way that runs contrary to business as usual for our country but is decidedly possible to accomplish.

There are distinctions to be made between those institutionalists who favored commissions and other similar devices, and those in favor of more comprehensive types of planning (Barber 1994). The greatest emphasis on planning came largely in the context of the Great Depression and from Tugwell, Means, and Ezekiel. Clark argued for countercyclical public works programs, and Mitchell for more modest indicative planning. Such disagreements over specific policy instruments, however, could be accommodated within the general ideal of a pragmatic and experimental approach to social control.

With a tracer bullet approach, you can implement very small bits of functionality very quickly, and get immediate feedback on how well your team communicates and delivers.

About the Bacharach Leadership Group: Training for Pragmatic Leadership™ “Vision without execution is hallucination.”—Thomas Edison The litmus test of pragmatic leadership is results. The Bacharach Leadership Group (BLG) focuses on the skills necessary to lead and move agendas. Whether in corporations, nonprofits, universities, or entrepreneurial start-ups, BLG instructors train leaders in the core competencies necessary to execute change and innovation. At all levels of the organization, leaders must master ideation skills for innovation, political skills for moving change, negotiation skills for building support, coaching skills for engagement, and team leadership skills for going the distance. The BLG approach: 1. ASSESSMENT BLG will assess your organizational challenges and leadership needs. 2. ALIGNMENT BLG will align its training solutions with your organization’s challenges and culture. 3. TRAINING BLG training includes options for mixed-modality delivery, interactive activities, and collaboration with an emphasis on application. 4. OWNERSHIP BLG provides continuous follow-up, access to the exclusive BLG mobile apps library, and coaching. Whether delivering a complete leadership academy or a specific program or workshop, BLG will partner with you to get the results you need. To keep up to date with the BLG perspective, visit blg-lead.com or contact us at info@blg-lead.com.

Our beauty-less theological roots can issue forth in a fairly pragmatic value system. As mentioned above, we have even named ourselves based on one practical, measurable activity: getting out the good news.19 But are God’s values equally pragmatic? What if God really did set beauty on par with truth and goodness? Has our more utilitarian approach given us a skewed perspective on God and Christian duty?

Brief Overview of the Growing Trend in Recovery Facilities In recent years, the landscape of wellness and recovery facilities has undergone a significant transformation, with an increasing focus on holistic approaches to health. Amidst this paradigm shift, one modality has emerged as a pivotal player in the pursuit of optimal well-being — the cold plunge. As businesses seek innovative ways to cater to the evolving needs of their clientele, the incorporation of cold plunges has garnered attention as a strategic and progressive move. Introduction to the Concept of Cold Plunges At the intersection of ancient practices and modern wellness, the cold plunge stands as a testament to the enduring pursuit of physical and mental equilibrium. This article delves into the multifaceted realm of cold plunges, unraveling their historical context, scientific underpinnings, and the myriad benefits they offer. As we navigate the nuanced landscape of recovery, it becomes evident that the cold plunge is not merely a trend but a judicious investment in the holistic well-being of individuals. Thesis Statement: Exploring the Benefits and Value of Incorporating Cold Plunges in Commercial Establishments for Enhanced Recovery Experiences In the following discourse, we embark on a comprehensive exploration of the advantages that cold plunges bring to both physical and mental health. Beyond individual well-being, we scrutinize the pragmatic implications for businesses operating in the wellness sector. This article aims not only to educate and inform but to make a compelling case for why investing in cold plunges is a strategic move that transcends fleeting trends, offering enduring value to both customers and commercial establishments alike.

One of Amazon’s leadership principles applies here: Disagree, then commit. The notion of disagreeing, and then committing, can be a pragmatic approach for causing an honest dialogue because with this notion, you are explicitly stating the expectation that there will be disagreement.

The yuppie was an adult version of the privileged campus longhair who had outgrown the juvenile provocations and naive politics of his youth and now had a "pragmatic" approach to changing the world. This mostly consisted of buying things that were sensible, bourgeois, and decorous, such as Volvo station wagons and imported Italian olive oil.

Software is nothing like construction. Software is innovation. Innovation is difficult—if not impossible—to predict.

Different languages solve the same problems in different ways. By learning several different approaches, you can help broaden your thinking and avoid getting stuck in a rut.

The basis of Rickover's authority was his dual role which tied him to both the Commission and the Navy. Because he quickly sensed the possibilities of this arrangement, he was able to turn it to his advantage. Instead of a double infringement on his authority, the dual organization became a vehicle for unusual independence. Rickover achieved this independence, however, by avoiding routine procedures that would fix organizational patterns. In one instance he would act as a naval officer, in another as a Commission official. This unpredictable and pragmatic approach gave him the freedom he sought. The dual organization itself simply provided the opportunity for independence.

The pragmatic approach entails “being concerned primarily with developing creativity” (Sternberg, 2000, p. 5), as opposed to understanding it. Polya’s (1954) emphasis on the use of a variety of heuristics for solving mathematical problems of varying complexity is an example of a pragmatic approach. Thus, heuristics can be viewed as a decision-making mechanism which leads the mathematician down a certain path, the outcome of which may or may not be fruitful. The popular technique of brainstorming, often used in corporate or other business settings, is another example of inducing creativity by seeking as many ideas or solutions as possible in a non-critical setting.

This raises the age-old problem of mind-body reductionism. I’m not about to solve it and fortunately I don’t need to. I can take a pragmatic approach. Sometimes, it works to think of myself as a mechanical system. Sometimes, it works to think of myself as a perceiver and maker of meaning. Sometimes thinking of myself as an agent with free will helps and sometimes, especially when the scope of the will is exaggerated, it doesn’t. (At times telling myself to “buck up” just leads to a debilitating kind of neurochemical backfiring.) The

Granted, the interplay between our messages to ourselves (“buck up!” “relax”) and our neurochemistry is such that a private pep talk can change the chemical composition of the wash and swirl of our neurotransmitters. So can a pill. This raises the age-old problem of mind-body reductionism. I’m not about to solve it and fortunately I don’t need to. I can take a pragmatic approach. Sometimes, it works to think of myself as a mechanical system. Sometimes, it works to think of myself as a perceiver and maker of meaning. Sometimes thinking of myself as an agent with free will helps and sometimes, especially when the scope of the will is exaggerated, it doesn’t.

This substance over focuses out 15 things which you should remember in the event that you might want have the top astounding voice over. These individuals incorporate things like understanding that the cost 1 costs presumably will are unique in relation to the cost of which an alternate one costs, knowing how to again as well as express profound gratitude to your performer for extraordinary perform, multi checking to maintain a strategic distance from rerecords, being pragmatic concerning the time scale and as of now being clear with as much as occupation necessities are included in addition to other things. On the off chance that you've ever found that there is a brilliant words, then you may have investigated utilizing that phenomenal style as a part of an expert approach as a craftsman, commentator or possibly like a voice-over ability. Voice-over, or maybe joining your own manner of speaking for you to publicizing furthermore noted correspondences, can be an extremely beneficial teach for only a legitimately prepared skill. In this business arranged world parcels of voices are fundamental negligible sounds, whiny remarks, gravelly sounds, smooth commotions and in addition normal voices. Voice over perform has turned out to be very ferocious and hard to get a hold of. In spite of the fact that this work of art is being utilized as a part of a ton of creation all inclusive, you will locate there's vast number of people considering entering this line of business. In any case, just like a fresh out of the box new gamer from the movie creation commercial center, you'll need to asset yourself the kind of voiceover capacity you understand will advance your reality what's more, let the thought for getting awesome suppositions with the group.

Sport and singing may require talent, but passion and determination are enough to make you good at practically anything else.  Your mind learns with alacrity and excels at virtually anything if it’s interested enough.  Every decision should start with criteria set by you; and only thereafter do you look at the options that have satisfied your criteria.  Having this attitude is the only way your life becomes your own. 

Five years ago, when Obamacare was being debated, reasonable minds might have differed about whether it would raise costs, reduce quality, and kill jobs. But today, when we have seen firsthand its devastating impact on people who have lost their insurance and entry-level workers who have lost their jobs, the effect of Obamacare is no longer open to debate. American history is replete with misguided experiments and social engineering, and yet the disaster that is Obamacare stands unique in its scope and devastation. Today, given the suffering it has caused, the most reasonable, pragmatic approach is to acknowledge it isn’t working, repeal it, and start over.

THE OBJECTIVE of a pragmatic approach to human rights is to prepare the way for the successful establishment of law-based rights. Making headway on human rights requires devising a pragmatic political strategy to enhance the power of constituencies that benefit from an expansion of rights while neutralizing opposition to a pro-rights coalition.

To pause for a moment, to thank the employee, and then, ideally, to inquisitively develop ideas further would be my suggestion for a pragmatic but extremely helpful approach in order to foster repeated cycles of innovation.

If we were looking for a typically German source we would turn to the metaphysicists; for a typically British source we would apply to the Essayists who, through their spokesman, Meredith, have proclaimed humour the privilege of the select minds. And so on and so forth. But since we want to study the typically American approach and the typically American understanding of humour, we shall not turn to the metaphysicists, or to the satirists, or to the philosophers or Essayists. We shall turn to the practics. American pragmatism in philosophy is a reflection of this avid search for what is useful and applicable — in everything that interests the American.

It is possible that some people have been so mauled by life in this society that such a semi-suicide is the best alternative to real suicide for them. Curiously, a hell of a lot of M.D.s are using the same logic in relentlessly over-prescribing tranquilizers, many of which are quite habit forming (e.g., Librium) and some of which (e.g. Tofranil), are definitely linked with impotence according to psycho-pharmacologists. As Dr. Lawrence Kolb told a Congressional committee way back in 1925, “There is . . . a certain type of shrinking neurotic individual who can’t meet the demands of life, is afraid to meet people, has anxieties and fears, who if they took small amounts of narcotics – and I have examined quite a few of them – would be better and more efficient people than they would be without it.” Dr. Kolb also described two physicians who were opiate addicts and practiced successfully until they managed to “kick the habit,” after which they became hopeless problems to themselves and their families. “These two physicians that I am talking about didn’t get cured," Dr. Kolb said scornfully, “they should have had it (the drug) forever, because it (the cure) would not mean anything but an insane asylum for them, and they were doing a pretty good job of work as physicians when they were on the drug and regularly taking it.” American society has ignored Dr. Kolb’s pragmatic approach for decades and has struggled heroically to get all these lost souls off their depressant drugs. Or has it? The “war against heroin” continues; but in New York, the state has abandoned the hope of real “cure” and is satisfied just to get the junkies off an addicting drug it has made illegal – heroin – and onto an equally addicting drug it has made legal – methadone; and in the nation at large, prescriptions for central nervous system depressants are said to run into the tens of millions every year. The official attitude, by default, now appears to be, “If you can’t bear our society without being half-asleep, let us at least control which drug you choose to be half-asleep on.” This is not a formula for a non-addicted nation. It is a face-saving game to allow those bureaucrats whom William S. Burroughs calls “control addicts” to continue to believe that they are, by God, controlling everybody they want to control.

Taking a pragmatic approach to this affliction, I gave up wishing things were different

strategic human resource management adopts a holistic approach, rather than an atomistic- individualist approach. It cannot be denied that strategies may seem a lot more like an idiosyncrasy rather than a pragmatic instrument. But the challenge is in spinning the wheels of these strategies into motion and studying the consequence which assuredly would lead to some development and not necessarily a failure.

Today, however, we could say that in a certain contradictory fashion, at least, the refutation of Marx has itself been refuted. In a broad sense, class society in the Marxian sense has re-established itself. For Marx, class was a relational concept: the exclusion from ownership of the means of production implied a fundamental asymmetry of power and distinguished workers from capitalists.155 Viewed in this way, Marx’s concept of class is completely relevant again today, as never before have more people been dependent on wages, above all because they do not possess any means of production.156 The (working) class-in-itself—as Marx called it—has grown both nationally and globally. At the international level, social distinctions between nations may well have lessened in the recent past, but within states they have increased immensely.157 Nevertheless, we cannot speak of a dichotomous class society as Marx and Engels prophesied in The Communist Manifesto.158 Despite downward mobility, the middle class continues to be important. For a modern class analysis, then, the most appropriate approach is a ‘pragmatic realism’ that embraces the dimensions of power, exploitation, closure and life chances.159

I love this view of accident management because it acknowledges that people will inevitably make mistakes a certain percentage of the time. The pragmatic approach is to acknowledge this and build a system robust enough to filter mistakes out before they become disasters. When a disaster occurs, it is a system-wide failure and it may not be fair to find a single human to take the blame.

But the utility of such confrontation is by no means merely psychological, as important as that is. It is the appropriate pragmatic approach as well: If you act nobly—a word that is very rarely used now, unfortunately—in the face of suffering, you can work practically and effectively to ameliorate and rectify your own and other people’s misery, as such. You can make the material world—the real world—better (or at least stop it from getting worse). The same goes for malevolence: you can constrain that within yourself. When you are about to say something, your conscience might (often does) inform you, noting, “That is not true.” It might present itself as an actual voice (internal, of course) or a feeling of shame, guilt, weakness, or other inner disunity—the physiological consequence of the duality of psyche you are manifesting. You then have the opportunity to cease uttering those words. If you cannot tell the truth, you can at least not consciously lie.1 That is part of the constraint of malevolence. That is something within our grasp. Beginning to cease knowingly lying is a major step in the right direction.

Britain, by contrast, has a distinct orientation toward the empirical approach. Even the political system, however strong the attachment to it, tends to be justified in pragmatic terms. Democracy, having been implemented in largel

The inescapable conclusion is that instrumentalism is not the result of a scholarly analysis but rests on a personal choice. It buys practical relevance and popularity at the expense of a thorough explication, examination, and justification of the foundations of its teachings. Like so many programs which are impatient with the exacting and hard issues of traditional epistemology, pragmatism under the guise of down-to-earth practicality and progress, promotes a thoughtless dogma. Dewey was not doing philosophy, he was writing a creed. But upon reflection this should not surprise us. At the beginning we noted that pragmatism set forth the view that truth is what which 'works.' At that point, we could have asked whether the pragmatic theory claims to be true in the older sense of a current description of what is the case. If it does not (and it could not, given Dewey's disdain for a spectator approach to truth), then what could pragmatism be? It could only be a recommendation. And as such (prescriptive, rather than descriptive), we are free to reject it.

While such an approach can serve as a pragmatic measuring stick, it cannot be permitted to shape our values, nor determine the boundaries of our advocacy. The imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians, a circumstance reinforced by the overwhelming political, economic, and military influence of the United States, can never be ignored or understated as we develop workable analyses and principled solutions. This means that any hope for a future in which all people of the region can live in peace, security, freedom, and hope requires the involvement of other states. It is up to us, as Americans, to ensure that our involvement is based on universal humanistic values that are applied in a consistent manner. Such an approach has not historically been part of U.S. policy. As we enter the Biden era, we must change direction. We must no longer render Palestine exceptional.

Your visitors are used to a certain way e-commerce sites work. In total, they spend way more time on other sites than on your site. So don’t try to be different in the way your site works, because then they have to figure out and learn how your site works.

Postmodern pragmatism deals with problems or situations that focus on practical approaches and solutions.

Engineering is about adopting a scientific, rationalist approach to solving practical problems within economic constraints, but that doesn’t mean that such an approach is either theoretical or bureaucratic. Almost by definition, engineering is pragmatic.

No other concept in human psychology has gained so much importance as motivation which passed the test of both pragmatism and pervasiveness in areas of human activities and interests.

It is easy to appreciate the theological import of this line of reasoning. Standard probability theory asks us to predict consequences from abstract knowledge: Knowing God’s vision, what can you predict about Man? But Bayes’s theorem takes the more pragmatic and humble approach to inference. It is based on real, observable knowledge: Knowing Man’s world, Bayes asks, what can you guess about the mind of God?

The point is not that our beliefs are inherently problematic but only that they become problematic when held in a manner that would claim more than some provisional, pragmatic response to that which transcends conceptualization. This a/ theistic approach is not to be mistaken for some type of synthesis of opposites; rather, it is the uncollapsible tension between affirming our religious ideas while also placing them into question. This a/ theism is not then some temporary place of uncertainty on the way to spiritual maturity, but rather is something that operates within faith as a type of heatinducing friction that prevents our liquid images of the divine from cooling and solidifying into idolatrous form.

Decisions should be based on a pragmatic approach to find a solution rather than on emotional feelings.

To change, you cannot rely only on resolve and good intentions. To make a real difference, your approach has to be pragmatic.

When we approach diversity in this pragmatic way, we make the mistake of treating minorities as a means to an end. They help us achieve our goals and visions instead of shaping the vision and process themselves.

A huge shape loomed beside her…a man mounted on a sturdy black dray. It was Devon, she realized in bewilderment. She couldn’t say a word to save her life. He wasn’t dressed for riding--he wasn’t even wearing gloves. More perplexing still, he was wearing a stableman’s low-crowned felt hat, as if he had borrowed it while departing in haste. “Lady Helen asked me to fetch you,” Devon called out, his face unfathomable. “You can either ride back with me, or we’ll stand here and argue in a lightning storm until we’re both flambéed. Personally I’d prefer the latter--it would be better than reading the rest of those account ledgers.” Kathleen stared at him with stunned confusion. In practical terms, it was possible to ride double with Devon back to the estate. The dray, broad-built and calm-tempered, would be more than equal to the task. But as she tried to imagine it, their bodies touching…his arms around her… No. She couldn’t bear being that close to any man. Her flesh crawled at the thought. “I…I can’t ride with you.” Although she tried to sound decisive, her voice was wavering and plaintive. Rain streamed down her face, rivulets trickling into her mouth. Devon’s lips parted as if he were about to deliver a scathing reply. As his gaze traveled over her drenched form, however, his expression softened. “Then you take the horse, and I’ll walk back.” Dumbstruck by the offer, Kathleen could only stare at him. “No,” she eventually managed to say. “But…thank you. Please, you must return to the house.” “We’ll both walk,” he said impatiently, “or we’ll both ride. But I won’t leave you.” “I’ll be perfectly--” She broke off and flinched at a bone-rattling peal of thunder. “Let me take you home.” Devon’s tone was pragmatic, as if they were standing in a parlor instead of a violent late-summer storm. Had he said it in an overbearing manner, Kathleen might have been able to refuse him. But somehow he’d guessed that softening his approach was the best way to undermine her.

Let me take you home.” Devon’s tone was pragmatic, as if they were standing in a parlor instead of a violent late-summer storm. Had he said it in an overbearing manner, Kathleen might have been able to refuse him. But somehow he’d guessed that softening his approach was the best way to undermine her. The dray bobbed its head and pawed the ground with one hoof. She would have to ride back with him, she realized in despair. There was no alternative. Wrapping her arms around herself, she said anxiously, “F-first I have something to say to you.” Devon’s brows lifted, his face cold. “I…” She swallowed hard, and the words came out in a rush. “What I said in the study earlier was unkind, and untrue, and I’m s-sorry for it. It was very wrong of me. I shall make that very clear to Mr. Totthill and Mr. Fogg. And your brother.” His expression changed, one corner of his mouth curling upward in the hint of a smile that sent her heartbeat into chaos. “You needn’t bother mentioning it to them. All three will be calling me far worse before all is said and done.

One of the most intriguing questions of our time is why in the developing countries their newly established liberal political institutions - set up with great hopes and idealism - survived in a handful of them and not in others. Even in countries where they did survive, the nature of infraction against them was brutal and the effectiveness of their resilience against it uncertain. One of the least explored areas in this respect is whether the developing countries and their elite are capable of learning from their past experiences - despite their political passivity, gullibility and cynicism - how to develop patterns of political conduct which will be widely viewed as proper and fruitful. To put it another way, whether they would be able to learn to strike a balance between what is normatively desirable and what is politically possible in operating public institutions and in dealing with political adversaries. What then are the problems in their learning and assimilating such normative-pragmatic dos and don'ts? The area where such problems can be fruitfully examined is the area of political society where different kinds of normative-pragmatic mix and imbalance affect the operation, effectiveness and survival of public institutions. Attempts at overly normative commitments (of personal morality, religion or secular ideology) and an overly pragmatic approach uncommitted to political values (of selfish, corrupt and cynical use of political power) often weaken the operations of liberal political institutions. Hence the need for a normative-pragmatic balance.

Cioran puts a twist on mystical discourse from the very beginning, since for him tears are not sweet but bitter: 'As I searched for the origin of tears, I thought of saints. Could they be the source of tears' bitter light? The saints in Cioran's title belong to a new class of saints, mostly lay and mostly female, called 'mystics', 'spirituels', contemplatifs', or 'alumbrados'. Their approach to the Christian faith is antitheological and antiinstitutional, based solely on intuition and sentiment. . . . Cioran subsumes mystics under the name saints. Since for him mystics are apolitical, passive contemplators of divinity, and he prefers to call them saints. Saints [Cioran] writes, are politicians — though 'failed' ones, because they deny appearances: pragmatic men and women of action, whose acts of charity express their love of humankind. . . . In Tears and Saints, Cioran defines saintliness as the 'overcoming of our condition as fallen creatures'. In mysticism, redemption and the saints' will to possess God are in fact one and the same thing. That is why the formula for redemption need not remain confined to the spiritual domain and can easily be translated into political terms: the mystic's spiritual union with God becomes a (small) nation's fulfillment of a greater destiny: 'Our entire political and spiritual mission must concentrate on the determination to will a transfiguration, on the desperate and dramatic experience of transforming our whole way of life'.

So far, we’ve learned that there are rational, evidence-based reasons to accept that some of the siddhis—the ones that have been repeatedly tested under controlled conditions—are real. We’ve seen evidence suggesting that advanced meditation may be associated with improved psi performance. And, except for rare individuals and some advanced meditators, among the general population we’ve seen that these abilities tend to be weak, sporadic, and uncontrollable. From a scientific perspective, the mere existence of these phenomena, regardless of how weak or unreliable they may be, is astounding. It tells us that the modern understanding of the human mind, which is based on the neurosciences and its approach to studying brain function, has completely overlooked a fundamental aspect of our capacities and potentials. It says that both science and religious scholarship have prematurely discarded stories about the siddhis as mere superstitions. Undoubtedly many of those legendary tales are pure fantasy. But we now know that some of them described dazzling gems that have been obscured by the distortions of history. Identifying and polishing those gems with modern techniques opens the real possibility of discovering whole new realms of knowledge. Over time, as mainstream interest in studying the capacities of advanced meditators increases, we are likely to understand psi and the siddhis in new ways. As that happens, more integrated models of reality will arise, and eventually technologies may be developed. How long do we have to wait before this knowledge is pragmatically useful? Not too long.

1848…..they returned to Cologne to begin a new working-class group there. By April it had eight thousand members. Almost immediately, Marx disagreed with its leader Gottschalk over tactics. Gottschalk preferred explosive rhetoric about worker’s rights and arming a people’s militia, communist notions that terrified the middle classes of Germany who were afraid the rights just won would be lost with a revolt by the more numerous lower classes. Marx, however, believed that although the pace of change was frustrating, historical development was slow, and before there could be proletariat rule, there had to be middle-class rule. In any case, a proletariat ‘class’ barely existed in Germany. The number of people who labored with their hands was great, but they were disorganized and did not as yet recognize their own strength. To support the ultimate goal of that group, Marx believed one had to work for middle-class democracy. Viewing upcoming elections as just such an opportunity, he encouraged participation to ensure by democratic candidates over reactionaries who would roll back on reforms. Marx further believed that any newspaper he and his associates published In Colgne had to be democratic not communist, because in Germany democracy was the ideology with the greater immediate potential. If they had chosen to produce an ultra-radical newspaper, Engels said, ‘there was nothing left for us to do but to preach communism in a little provincial sheet and to found a tiny sect instead of a great party of action.’ The pragmatic approach was not unlike the one Marx had taken during his tenure as editor…

What is more, in what follows we look at the capacity of the other schools to deal with some of the same problems that Marxism-Leninism considers its private preserve. The fact that the non-Marxist-Leninists deal with these problems in a non-class-bound way is in itself a response to Marxism-Leninism with its dogmatic positions on partijnost' and revolutionary spirit in philosophy. In other words, as we watch each philosophic approach proceed from normative perspectives to speculative issues and then to epistemologicallogical considerations, we see a need for communication which no one of them can avoid and which transcends the explicit or public interchange which is often the work of well-meaning but marginal representatives of these philosophic approaches. For example, there is a sense in which some "progressive" neo-Thomist advocates of dialogue with Marxism are as "Marxist" as their Marxist-Leninist interlocutors. Philosophic debate is not political rhetoric. To the extent that what follows succeeds, it establishes the contours of a theoretical landscape, over which all of our protagonists can travel. It is our contention that these travellers—despite their varied historical situations—cannot avoid meeting, at least relative to the basic questions we evoke below. Only the reader will be able to say whether we have provided merely further evidence as to the incompatibility of various philosophic views or a useful map of the paths across the contemporary theoretical landscape. — Tom Rockmore et al. Marxism and Alternatives: Towarsd the Conceptual Interaction Among Soviet Philosophy, Neo-Thomism, Pragmatism, and Phenomenology (1981), pp. xiii-xiv.

There are certain tips and tricks that apply at all levels of software development, ideas that are almost axiomatic, and processes that are virtually universal. However, these approaches are rarely documented as such; you'll mostly find them written down as odd sentences in discussions of design, project management, or coding.

But, as the conflict-studies scholar Jayne Docherty argues, the F.B.I.’s approach was doomed from the outset. In “Learning Lessons from Waco”—one of the very best of the Mount Carmel retrospectives—Docherty points out that the techniques that work on bank robbers don’t work on committed believers. There was no pragmatism hidden below a layer of posturing, lies, and grandiosity. Docherty uses Max Weber’s typology to describe the Davidians. They were “value-rational”—that is to say, their rationality was organized around values, not goals. A value-rational person would accept his fourteen-year-old daughter’s polygamous marriage, if he was convinced that it was in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Because the F.B.I. could not take the faith of the Branch Davidians seriously, it had no meaningful way to communicate with them:

Kashmir Shaivism asserts that all phenomena that ever appear in the universe enjoy an eternal existence within Absolute Consciousness. Because time and space do not exist for the Absolute, these phenomena do not exist within Consciousness in the same way that things exist in a room. Rather, they exist and shine within the Absolute as pure Consciousness. For example, a plant exists in a seed in the form of the potential of the seed to appear as a plant. The whole universe exists within Absolute Consciousness in the form of its divine potency. Consciousness is capable of appearing as anything and everything in the universe by Its own free will. Therefore, the philosophy asserts that all things have an eternal and absolutely real existence within pure and absolute Consciousness. This approach is known as spiritual realism and is another example of a theory that is particular to Kashmir Shaivism. Spiritual realism is considerably different from the realism of other philosophical systems, for instance material realism of the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Samkhya schools. Also, this realism should be differentiated from certain forms of idealism in both India and Europe. These idealists generally consider phenomenal existence to be the outward manifestation of past mental impressions appearing like things in a dream. According to Kashmir Shaivism, the things of this world are not a dream because they enjoy a concrete existence in time, present a common target for the activities of many people, and serve a particular function. The things of this world are real for all practical purposes. In other words, the authors of Kashmir Shaivism have worked out a pragmatic realism. — B. N. Pandit, Specific Principles of Kashmir Shaivism (3rd ed., 2008), p. xxi-xxii

A secular approach to politics first took root in the universities, the seedbed where worldviews are planted and nurtured. As William Galston of the Brookings Institution explains, in the modern age, scholars decided that the study of politics must be “scientific”—by which they meant value free.1 As a consequence, political theory was no longer animated by a moral vision. It became purely pragmatic.

I obtained a photocopy of the hand-written and illustrated “Necrominon: The Book of Shades” and fragments of “The Book of Tahuti (Thoth)”, original writings which were never published and nearly forgotten in obscurity. At the time, my utterance and instinctual understanding of “Luciferian” was completely harmonious with what Pace called the Luciferian Sethanic Cult of the Masks. Within the pages of his Necrominon, along with copies of personal correspondence from the early 1960’s and into the late 1970’s, Luciferian Philosophy was pragmatically and rationally explained by Charles Pace. My research and further expansion of Luciferianism solidified our Adversarial Philosophy and a balanced approach between our method of LHP thinking and developing the Will to influence change within ourselves and the world itself.