Rob Shook Cornel Wests prophetic pragmatism is a variation of pragmatism that he believes to be the best chance of promoting an Emerson-ian

culture of creative democracy by means of critical intelligence and social action. (150) He characterizes Emersons pragmatism as a democratic version of popular philosophy. Emerson felt that reason, formal thought, and certainty practiced by philosophers was withdrawn from human progress. ...when philosophers substitute Reason for common sense, they tend to view the sense of commoners to be nonsense. (150) In the absence of philosophical quests for certainty, people can begin to assemble and engage in direct democracy. Wests prophetic variation refers to how his own Christian background has shaped his way of thinking. Prophetic Christian conceptions of what it is to be human, how we should act and what we should hope for are [not] rationally demonstrable.... Rather, these reasons are good (persuasive to some, nonsense to others) because they are rationally acceptable... Marrying the religious and pragmatic is valuable because where pragmatism falls short (a basic human inability to know all of the practical derivations of every idea one believes is true), religion picks up the slack. Passing down simple values is easier when it is backed up by tradition rather than a complicated bunch of philosophical theory. There are, however, a few questions brought up by the use of the term prophetic. First, why does such a passing on of values have to be based in religion? The issue of static dogmas makes religion unappealing to a growing number of people. Also, why does West refuse to give credence to either theism or atheism? While Christianity may to him be more about its social tenets, to the majority of the

population it is irrevocably linked to theism. Wests refusal to acknowledge as true either theism or atheism is a potential sticking point for atheists. Knowing only the Christian label that he gives himself, Christian theists would be inclined to take West as one of their own and be more open to his ideas, while atheist readers might be put off by him because of the implied theism that is attached to religion in the United States. He is deliberately vague when it comes to discussions about God- I dont believe that any arguments for or against the existence of god have much weight one way or the other. Not at all. (28) While at first glance this seems to be denying any position on the matter-perhaps suggesting agnosticism-a more careful analysis recognizes that he speaks only on the validity of arguments others make on each side of the debate. We already know that West doesnt characterize Christian belief as something that can be reasoned. It is either rationally acceptable to the individual or it isnt. So a denial of arguments for or against God doesnt comment on a personal belief or disbelief. We get another glimpse of this noncommittal language when West says ...the fundamental philosophical question remains whether the Christan gospel is ultimately true. And, as a Christian prophetic pragmatist... I reply in the affirmative.... (171) The intention seems to be continued alliance with the Christian tradition. But Christian gospel allows for reader interpretation, and is by no means verifies his belief or disbelief in god. Again, it represents a refusal to comment on it. Why does such a passing on of values have to be based in religion? Wests refusal to comment on his own theism or atheism seems to be an effort to avoid alienating thinkers of either persuasion while commenting on its irrelevance to social

critique. More important is to hold no absolute truth; West writes that inadequacies in the Marxist tradition regarding the existential meaning of death, suffering, love and friendship (13) are fulfilled by Christian insights. He minimizes the clash of these two belief systems by explaining how they speak to differing areas of thought- Marxism doesnt delve into existentialism or provide instructions on day-to-day living, while Christianity doesnt provide a foundation for social organization and democracy. He doesnt weigh them the same, though. I am a non-Marxist socialist in that, as a Christian, I recognize certain irreconcilable differences between Marxists of whatever sort and Christians of whatever sort.... Since my conception of Christian faith is deeply, though not absolutely, historical, this disagreement... is a basic existential difference in the weight I put on certain biblical narratives, symbols and rituals that generate sanity and meaning for me. (13) Wests emphasis of Christian heritage is no doubt an acknowledgement of the good Christ-ian values passed effortlessly through the generations. Religion in this case is a fantastic vessel for positive social thought. While this Christocentrism does risk alienating atheists, if they read far enough they will gain the understanding that he isnt in direct contradiction of atheistic views. More importantly, his reverence for Christian thought appeals to the majority. He is unlike Gramsci in being religious for reasons beyond politics. But he recognizes the value of being Christian as well. ...the culture of the earth is deeply religious. To be in solidarity with them requires not only an acknowledgement of what they are up against, but also an appreciation of how they cope with their situation. (171) The distinctive hallmarks of a prophetic pragmatist are a universal consciousness that promotes an all-embracing democratic and libertarian moral vision,

a historical consciousness that acknowledges human finitude and conditionedness and a critical consciousness that encourages relentless critique and self-criticism for the aims of social change and personal humility. The value of combining pragmatism and religious thought is in expanding the ability of each to recognize social ills and create solutions. Emersons form of pragmatism is clearly very satisfying to West, but he apparently finds it lacking in some regard. The inability for a single person to comprehend anything close to the breadth of philosophical history is a chief concern. To take a shortcut by relying on good social pressures already very common is society is valuable; it provides a foundation that is not easily shaken, and a common value with a great portion of the world. This fits with Emersons idea of the importance of existing not only as a philosophical thinker but also as a person who shares thoughts and conversation with commoners. Wests view of Christianity is critical as well. He doesnt critique Christs words specifically, but recognizes that there are static dogmas and decrepit doctrines (171) held by many that arent productive. Rather than casting in entirely with Christianity, Marx, Gramsci, Emerson, Dewey, or any other, he takes the pieces that make the most sense to him- some rationally demonstrable, some merely rationally acceptable- and constructs a personal method for viewing the world.