The question of what we as a generation leave our future generations is one that should worry every person. Personally, I focus on the betterment I can do for society that might act as a ripple in the pond for a better future, and that begins for me, with me. A change in thought, habit, or philosophy on a personal level radiates throughout a community or generation, which leaves echoes behind for the future, and this sentiment can be found in ideals put forward by John McDermott and C.S. Peirce. In his “Transiency and Amelioration” essay, McDermott discusses this in a profound way while laying out a list of five dimensions of American culture that, if utilized correctly, would lay the foundation for a new world culture. Taken independently, these points seem like facts, like just things that are; however, when paired with a few of Peirce’s philosophical accounts, they turn into something more actionable; they become something worth attention. In order to understand better, let’s briefly discuss McDermott’s five dimensions.

First, McDermott discusses pluralism in a positive aspect. In a country that has been driven by a God fearing religion, pluralism can be a frightening thing; however, this simply highlights the importance of a knowledge of other ethnic, religious, racial, and social backgrounds. He uses this to exemplify the fact that any chance of survival is communal. There can’t be a me and them it must be a we. This, for me, goes hand in hand with his next dimension: provincialism. At first glance, the idea of focusing only on the community around us, geographically for our sake, sounds horrifying; however, the way McDermott describes it makes a lot of sense. We must first focus on the experiences and issues that we as a community, Americans, have before we can accurately look at global experiences and issues. It’s the idea of looking in the mirror to fix an issue before pointing your finger to the external world. Moving forth, McDermott discusses the idea of interrelatedness being unavoidable. This interrelatedness refers to a connection between generations and the things left for future generations. As McDermott puts it, “The miracle drug of one decade is the uterine cancer of a subsequent decade.” (74) Anti-eschatology is another dimension McDermott discusses. This is the view of not focusing on a finality or an ultimate resolution. This, in McDermott’s view, stems from Americans’ skepticism about final solutions. Finally, we have his dimension of transience, which is the way of individual life that reflects the overall human odyssey. Now that we have a brief understanding of what McDermott sees for our future, we can dive into the ways we can act upon these with ideas from Peirce.

We will begin by looking at this idea of pluralism. As McDermott describes it, pluralism is an imperative notion that requires knowledge across religious, racial, and social lines. The best way to acquire such a knowledge can be taken from Perice’s claim that “logic is rooted in the social principle,” which is personified with an example involving two decks of cards and being faced with a choice. For this example, let’s assume a person has a choice to pick a single card out of a deck of 25 cards. One deck is 24 red cards and one black card, and the other deck is 24 black cards and one red card. The caveat is this: the red card will send them to an eternal utopia, but the black card will cosign them to everlasting woe. Because we are mortal creatures, we have a limited amount of time to make decisions, but the amount of risks we encounter or choices presented to us in our time is unlimited; therefore, the probability of a unique event -- an event that lacks relative frequency because it has never happened before -- is incalculable. We don’t have enough time in our life to properly analyze the choice between the primarily red deck and primarily black deck, not that we could logically analyze such a unique event, yet we know that everyone would choose the deck of primarily red cards. Peirce explains this choice, to without a doubt choose the primarily red deck, through thinking of the self as a part of community. He explains that to think logically, is to think of one's whole community, to consider how everyone else might decide. As he says, “logicality inexorably requires that our interests shall not be limited. They must not stop at our own fate, but must embrace the whole community. (149)” In our example, we operate internally, without communicating with others explicitly, but by using our knowledge of people based on their actions to dictate what they might choose. For pluralism to succeed, we must communicate with one another in order to learn about one another. Without communication we resort to only assuming one’s character by perspectives of their actions and habits. Knowledge through perspectives of action is valuable, as seen in the example, but it is not foolproof, which is evident when someone acts “out of character” and we are shocked, stunned, disappointed in our lack of knowledge of the truth. A key component in doing this accurately, however, is honesty. In order to acquire accurate knowledge, we must be honest within our communications. If we make exceptions of ourselves in this rule and begin lying to others in our communication, how would we know or trust that the communication we receive is honest? What else benefits from an honest form of communication across ethical, religious, racial, and social divisions? The art that is fixing beliefs. To utilize communication in this way is an aspect of using what Peirce calls the best method of fixing beliefs: the method of science. The method of science involves hypothesis, evidence, and conclusion. For Peirce, the fundamental hypothesis is this, “there are real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those realities affect our senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really are, and any man, if he have sufficient experience and reason enough about it, will be led to the one true conclusion.(120)”  This means that the method of science is the only method that can bring community to a consensus, if pursued long enough. This method relies on communication for new evidence to be brought forth that might resolve a doubt of beliefs, for we only doubt when we suspect our beliefs might not conform to how things really are. If we communicate with our neighbors, all of our neighbors, to acquire new evidence regarding their beliefs or regarding doubt of our own beliefs, then utilize the honest communication to alter our beliefs based on what has been presented to us, then we are actively using  the scientific method of fixing beliefs in order to achieve pluralism in our communities.

Similarly, the scientific method of fixing beliefs relates to our provincialism dimension. McDermott uses this idea of provincialism as a positive thing. On the surface, being concerned only with your country sounds almost bigoted and self-centered. It very much sounds like a truly American thing to focus only on ourselves; however, McDermott makes a good case for it. As he phrases it simply, “neighborhoods are sacred and so too are all the provincial experiences of all the people in global culture.” I think he is highlighting the necessity to look inward, in this case in our country, at our experiences and issues before casting the eye to global experiences and issues. By doing so, we require a degree of honesty, once again. In order for us as Americans to gather an accurate knowledge of our American experiences and problems, from across ethical, religious, and social backgrounds, we must -- no exceptions -- be honest in our communications. There is no room for exceptions of self to lie about our experiences, and if we do, we soil the scientific method of fixing beliefs as well as logic.

Next, we will look at McDermott's insistence that interrelatedness is unavoidable. McDermott’s idea that something good for one generation can be seen or turned into a cancer or time-bomb for another is both exemplified and combated by Peirce’s ideals. If we utilize Peirce’s idea of logic being rooted in the social principle, we find a combat with this assumed inevitability. How can we not resolve future generational cancers and supposed time-bombs if we are properly, honestly communicating with our neighbors and fellow Americans? I think if we are acquiring the proper knowledge through this social principle then there is almost no reason for us to be able to recognize and rehabilitate whatever these cancers are; however, if we look to Peirce’s ideas of the self-conscious and private self, we might see a bump in this plan. The idea of the private self deals with the knowledge of our personal selves and being able to differentiate my personal experience from your personal experience. A key to this is not just being honest with ourselves and those around us, but it involves a bit of self reflection and understanding. For whatever reason, let’s presume someone is incapable of doing so. For example, a narcissist is incapable of seeing a problem within themselves that spreads throughout their family and community; they point blame rather than focusing on their private self. This would hinder the effectiveness of the social principle because their honesty hasn’t been questioned enough to be scientifically adapted and revised. To meet full circle, this lack of self awareness could be eliminated with proper social principle and the growth of knowledge and logic; however, can it?

Finally, McDermott’s idea of anti-eschatology is tied to both Peirce’s scientific method of fixing beliefs and the social principle rooting logic. As mentioned before, this idea is linked to Americans’ skepticism about  a final resolution. The one thing that stands out to me in this discussion is the Christian faith, though many religions are prevalent in this discussion. I am highlighting the idea of a final, eternal afterlife -- the pearly gates and personal mansion waiting for believers. This is something that can be ameliorated, or even demolished, through the use of communication. If we are discussing with one another across religious backgrounds and learning new evidence and ideas that then alter or change our beliefs, we are utilizing the scientific method of fixing beliefs; however, if a religious believer learns of new evidence and chooses to ignore it, holding fast to their previous beliefs, they are using the method of tenacity, in which you simply hold tight to a belief because it is what you have always believed and find comfort in it, based on lack of confusion.

In conclusion, McDermott’s essay is something important to the future of American culture, but paired with Peirce’s ideas, can change the future of American culture. We can see clear ways both philosophers can be teamed up to solve the divisions in America, the generational time bombs left behind, the religious skepticality, and more. McDermott also discusses transience as a dimension of American culture, but I decided to exclude it from my discussion here. McDermott uses this term to mirror the individual journey with the overall, human odyssey; however, I am not sure I’ve wrapped my head around this idea enough to speak on it. With or without transiency, we can see the importance of both McDermott’s and Peirce’s ideas in tandem in regards to the American bequest for a new millennium.