Pragmatist Similarites and Criticisms of Harding

When reading Harding’s essay, I noticed several similarities to ideas present in Pragmatism. Harding idea that a person’s circumstances and experiences often shape the way that an object is perceived is very similar to one of Santayana’s belief on how we perceive objects. Santayana believes that our experiences shape the way we experience an object. For example take a painting of a dog. To a person who had a dog growing up with no problems, they might find this picture cute. However to a person who may have been attacked by a dog as a young child, the picture might look more terrifying. Both these people perceive the same thing however; their perception and judgment of the object is very different. Santayana further makes the claim that these experiences can not only shape our opinions of objects, but also our conceptions of truth. Harding similarly argues that the experience of being a woman, gay, or minority, affect the perception of data as well. She acknowledges that our experience and circumstances effect our perception just like Santayana. Harding seems to have many similarities to pragmatist thought.

In addition to this Harding’s solution to the problem of differing experiences and perceptions comes from pragmatist thought as well. Pragmatists urge people to do actions, and create habits that will create the most beneficial goal; however they also say that it is necessary to take into account everybody’s opinion when making a decision. They argue for a democracy, using everybody’s past experiences to join together and form a solution. They argue that it is important to include diverse ideas and values because it can “enlarge our vision” as Harding pointed out. Harding similarly thought it was important not to exclude the views of people not currently in power. It is important to hear these views, like those of women, when making conclusions about certain things. They also would definitely agree that it is important to critically examine our habits in the field of science to exclude other voices, and not realize the relationship between experience and perception. Pragmatists often argue it is important to examine our daily routine and the way we do things to find whether or not what we are doing is bad, and if we can make things more efficient in trying to achieve our goals.

However pragmatist would disagree greatly with Harding that combining different perceptions, makes our view of something more objective. Why does knowledge have to be considered objective for society to function. Pragmatists argue that truth is what is practical, not what is objectively real. We do not need an objective truth to accomplish what Harding is arguing. Just because you different people looking at something does not mean that their combined perception of something is more real. If one person see a Rorschach test and says he sees a penguin, and another person sees the same test and sees a cat, their combined perceptions don’t exactly lead to anything more real. In addition to this truth for a pragmatist, should be seen as what is practical to believe in, not what is objectively out there. For example the question of God. While I do realize that Harding talks about science, I do think that this question still points out the problem of just combining views and claiming they are more objective because there are many different viewpoints. Having a thousand different people from different countries and cultures will not make their answer to whether or not God exists more objective. It would just be a people arguing back and forth. You won’t have an answer. For a pragmatist however the answer is easy, what is practical to believe in is what is to be considered true. People say that just because the idea of God gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside does not mean he exists, A pragmatist would disagree with that statement. A pragmatist would point out how the idea of God can people better live their lives and creates many benefits for society such as charities and bringing communities together, etc etc. They would say that because believing in a God can lead to so many benefits, God therefore exists. Whether or not God is beneficial to the world is under debate however, you can see how they make their decisions.

Harding makes the mistake of trying to think that we need some idea of objectivism in order to order our lives. Objectivism is not necessary in creating solutions to arguments. Just because you have more people looking at something does not mean the combined perception may not be truer, and the solutions and the ideas they come up with may not necessarily be better. Having more voices just leads to more arguments when looking at reality objectively. It is difficult to have thousands of differing voices while at the same time accomplishing anything if you stick to arguing for an objective truth, even if it is a little distorted. Harding needs to abandon objectivity to accomplish her goal.