“Is this true or false and why?
Not all moderate positions are pragmatic,but all pragmatic positions appeal to moderates.”
First of all, thanks for the brain-strain, a-hole! You could have saved me a lot of discomfort by asking a question I had no interest in trying to answer.
But since you have (once again: you bastard!!!:
It seems to me that we first have to consider a possible distinction between the pragmatic and the practical. The cornerstone of the pragmatic is the pragmatic truth test which acts as a kind of synthesis between the inductive and deductive truth tests in that whether we back a statement with data or the inherent logic of it, they both must pass their respective truth tests by working within their given criteria. However, the pragmatic truth test brings the 2 together and then some, perhaps to the point of its own self destruction, by simply handing the validity of a statement to the criteria of what works. By doing so, we expose the criteria to that of a popularity contest: that which happens to work for those who have the power to decide what works for them: either through a collective of like-thinking others or resources.
For instance, the pragmatic truth test would certainly seem to back Capitalism for the rich since it must work for them as well having the validation of the less rich who they have managed to convince would be worse off without Capitalism. And to them, it would seem that the practical route would be to stay with Capitalism. And, in a sense, the moderate succumbs to this (because it seems practical (therefore pragmatic (to them (by bending to Capitalism and trying to reform it by piecemeal measures.
But given the very real threat of Globalism (and the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy that threatens our democracies (and man-made climate change which threatens our extinction, is it really practical or pragmatic to take a moderate position in the face of an extreme right-wing who can too easily confuse what serves their self interest for what actually works?
For instance: would more moderate positions have worked against NAZI Germany or Islamic extremists?
And having stumbled my way through this (and thanks again a-hole (I would answer your question (and I hope I am actually answering it –or shedding some light on it (by saying that: no, the moderate does not hold a monopoly on the practical or the pragmatic.
My problem (and it is “my problem” having stumbled through it like I have (and I say this in the spirit of what Jaspers called communication in the spirit of loving debate (is that the question is trying dedicate the pragmatic to a specific political or social position. And like most things modern and postmodern, the point of the pragmatic is to move away from fixed understandings of how things work and grand narratives and simply take things moment by moment: to deal with them as they come and hope we find the right solution: that which works (to quit looking for final solutions.
I refuse to be taken seriously.
Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru, just someone to play with.