FFT: Pragmatism

I find myself to be a pragmatist most of the time (when it's pragmatic to be so, of course). However, I was thinking today about a couple of things that pragmatists never really address.

A little background...

Pragmatists (like Dewey, Pierce, James, etc.) think that figuring out what is true, or what we should do, is in 'actual consequences.' For example, how do I know whether or not something is a book? Hypothesize that it is a book, and see what happens. Similarly, how do I know whether to bite my nails? Try it, and see what actually happens. In the long run, watching consequences will guide you towards what is true and good.

'Actual consequences' resemble a scientist's 'data,' however, consequences include every aspect of experiencs; i.e. not only the 'external' consequences, but also the 'internal' ones--like, my feelings, thoughts, doubts, actions, frustrations, etc., etc..

My first thought...

Pragmatists always assume that being in a mindset of 'looking at the consequences' is immune from pragmatic testing. It is just assumed that the mindset of 'looking at the consequences' is a good thing. The mindset is necessary for pragmatism to get off the ground, so it's got to be good! (right...?).

My concern is that this presumptuousness is not very pragmatic. I mean, shouldn't it at least be tested which mindset leads to better consequesnces? e.g. shouldn't Dewey have tried stupidity, just to see what it was like?

But, of course that wouldn't have solved much either...

In fact, I'm am not making an argument about correcting an aspect of Dewey, Pierce, or James's particular versions of pragmatism. I'm making a general skeptical argument that pragmatism cannot justify itself, becuase someone without a pragmatic mindset does not collect data, so they cannot make a pragmatic comparison. My claim:

I cannot decide whether 'not looking at the consequences' is more pragmatic than 'looking at the consequences,' because there is no way to know the consequences of the former mindset.

In fact, for all I know, stupidity has the best consequences. (but since my stupidity prevents me from seeing the consequences of my stupidity, I'll never know...)

(ok in some cases i know that my stupidity leads to bad consequences, but isn't there still an argument here? think billy budd, forrest gump, or apples in edens...)


My second thought...

When does a 'consequence' occur?

I've noticed that happiness invariably leads to unhappy consequences. It's like, I'm happy, yay, great...and then eventually it's like, wait, where'd that happiness go? And then eventually it appears! Yay, life is great! And then...as always, that feeling fades, and one day i'm like--man this problem is really sucky; i wish i didn't have to deal with this...

So, if happiness always leads to a suffering, is the pragmatist forced to say that happiness should be avoided?

(of course not, but i'm trying to point out that absurd results can be reached depending on what we decide are 'causes' and 'consequences')