Extreme Pragmatism

Some people have an outlook that is focused entirely on pragmatic action, Extreme Pragmatism. Like everything, pragmatism is good in moderation. Sometimes however it can become too dominant. Often a highly dominant Extreme Pragmatic approach means that deep thinking around approach, drivers and foundations is lacking. This can lead to decisions that do not balance the tactical and strategic views correctly. The highly tactical approach can get quick results, but often at the cost of later regret work. G. K . Chesterton seems to have articulated this issue nicely, though somewhat rhetorically.

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—”. At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But, as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

I have been working on some XML stuff recently and has spent a bunch of time considering precise definitions of things, an experience I've enjoyed but found hard work. It's a shame there isn't always the luxury of time to do it more often. I believe this groundwork will at least ensure that everyone is on the same page when using their shiny ontological lego bricks. A shared understanding of the foundations behing these bricks must (surely?) contribute to more effective modelling. It could have just defined some basic rules, but it doesn't think that would have worked as well.