>>54703642Pragmatism is errant because you have to define the basis of "usefulness/utility." Where does the universal baseline for "usefuleness" come from?
For example if a Pragmatist is saying that truth "exists" simply because it is "useful" to believe so, he has exposed a pre-existing set of morals by which he is judging what is "useful" and what is "not useful." What is the foundation of this set of morals if not objective truth itself? Does his set of morals change from day to day, or ever? It is certainly different from person to person. This would mean that truth does not exist, it is merely an illusory extension of the Self. Except that statement cannot be the case, because the statement itself is an assertion of truth. By that I mean, when you say the sentence "Truth does not objectively exist for everyone," you are asserting that sentence as being objectively true for everyone, thereby nullifying the worldview and proving it incorrect. See how knowledge/truth completely unravel in a Pragmatic worldview? You have to look at it on a meta level of thinking.
