Brief against "pragmatism is part of idealism"

Pragmatism is a part of idealism, and it is foolish to value the part over the whole.

I agree that it is foolish to value the part over the whole to the point that the whole suffers; but sometimes it can be beneficial to value the part over the whole. For example, when you fix a part on a car, you focus on, and value, that part over the rest of the car. But, the whole car does not suffer.

Another example is the current financial crisis. This is an example of valuing the part over the whole to the detriment of the whole. However, if the government had gone about solving the problem in the correct manner the whole would not have suffered. If the government had valued the people who did not have the money to afford a home over the rest of the nation, in moderation, they could have provided those people with jobs, or come up with another such solution. Not only would the people have jobs, and be able to afford a home, but the whole would not have suffered.

Let me know if that doesn't make sense. Basically it says that valuing the part over the whole is not always bad. What do you think?

Regarding the car analogy, I suspect an opponent would just counter by saying that the reason you value that part is because it is part of the whole. You still value the car over the part, you simply value the part in its function in the whole. Hope that makes sense.


Personally, I suspect the better argument may be to argue that Pragmatism isn't a part of Idealism. Or else say that a part can't conflict with a whole (probably rather difficult though). I just doubt that many judges will find for Part-above-whole arguments very often. Even though you only have to argue the exceptions case.

If we affirm the resolution so we can value the whole over the part. Then we are locked in to a cage. We can never value the part over the whole. But if we negate the resolution the we can do both. If you value the all parts then the whole will be taken care of.