John Dewey Pragmatically Tested

It seems to me fair enough to judge a man and his works by that man’s own standards. John Dewey’s measure of all things was whether or not those things work in practice. So judged, the moral and educational and political philosophy of John Dewey—if, indeed, Instrumentalism is not merely the negation of philosophy —is false to the core. For it has failed catastrophically in this hard world of ours, and we stand perplexed amidst ruins. If practical success is the measure of truth—and so Dewey, in substance, declared—then Dewey- ism was a delusion through and through.

Mr. Max Eastman’s mild defense of his old teacher and friend admits so many impeachments of Dewey’s thought that I hesitate to break a butterfly on the wheel. John Dewey aspired to shape the destinies of nations: and shape this country’s future he did, after an unpleasant fashion. For a man who intended— and in some sense, succeeded—to break down an order and substitute a new domination, I think a better apology is needed than merely the argument that, though wrongheaded in many matters, he was personally amiable and well-intentioned. We all know what Hell is paved with. If most of the mischief was done by Dewey’s disciples, rather than by Dewey himself—well, according to the great Pragmatic Sanction, we must judge the truth of a principle by its consequences; and the worth of a theorist, I suppose, by the actions of his students.

RK

About the Author

Russell Kirk

Featured Tags

It seems to me fair enough to judge a man and his works by that man’s own standards. John Dewey’s measure of all things was whether or not those things work in practice. So judged, the moral and educational and political philosophy of John Dewey—if, indeed, Instrumentalism is not merely the negation of philosophy —is false to the core. For it has failed catastrophically in this hard world of ours, and we stand perplexed amidst ruins. If practical success is the measure of truth—and so Dewey, in substance, declared—then Dewey- ism was a delusion through and through.

Mr. Max Eastman’s mild defense of his old teacher and friend admits so many impeachments of Dewey’s thought that I hesitate to break a butterfly on the wheel. John Dewey aspired to shape the destinies of nations: and shape this country’s future he did, after an unpleasant fashion. For a man who intended— and in some sense, succeeded—to break down an order and substitute a new domination, I think a better apology is needed than merely the argument that, though wrongheaded in many matters, he was personally amiable and well-intentioned. We all know what Hell is paved with. If most of the mischief was done by Dewey’s disciples, rather than by Dewey himself—well, according to the great Pragmatic Sanction, we must judge the truth of a principle by its consequences; and the worth of a theorist, I suppose, by the actions of his students.