Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that emphasizes the experience and context. It may not have a clear ethical framework or a set of fundamental principles. This can lead to an absence of idealistic ambitions and transformative change.
In contrast to deflationary theories about truth and pragmatic theories of truth do not reject the idea that statements relate to current events. They simply elucidate the role that truth plays in practical activities.
Definition
Pragmatic is a term that is used to describe things or people who are practical, rational, and sensible. It is often contrasted with idealistic which refers to an individual or notion that is based upon high principles or ideals. A person who is pragmatic looks at the real world conditions and circumstances when making decisions, and is focused on what is realistically accomplished rather than trying to achieve the best possible outcome.
Pragmatism, a brand new philosophical movement, emphasizes the importance that practical implications have in determining what is true, meaning or value. It is a third alternative philosophy in contrast to the dominant continental and analytical traditions. It was founded by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James with Josiah Royce as its founding fathers, pragmatism evolved into two distinct streams one of which is akin to relativism, the other towards realism.
The nature of truth is a major issue in the philosophy of pragmatism. Many pragmatists recognize that truth is a valuable concept but disagree on the definition or how it works in practice. One method, heavily influenced by Peirce & James, focuses on how people solve questions and make assertions and gives precedence to speech-acts and justification projects language-users use in determining whether something is true. Another method that is that is influenced by Rorty and his followers, focuses on the relatively mundane functions of truth, namely its ability to generalize, commend and warn--and is not concerned with a complete theory of truth.
This neopragmatic approach to the truth has two flaws. It firstly, it flings with relativism. Truth is a concept with so many layers of rich and long tradition that it's unlikely its meaning could be reduced to a few commonplace applications as pragmatists do. The second flaw is that pragmatism appears to be an approach that does not believe in the existence of truth, at a minimum in its substantial metaphysical form. This is evident in the fact that pragmatists, such as Brandom (who is owed a debt to Peirce and James) are generally silent on questions of metaphysics and Dewey's lengthy writings contain only one mention of the issue of truth.
Purpose
The aim of pragmatism is to provide an alternative to the analytic and Continental styles of philosophy. Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1860-1916) were the first to start its first generation. These pragmatists from the classical period focused on theorizing inquiry about meaning, meaning and the nature of truth. Their influence was felt by many influential American thinkers, such as John Dewey (1860-1952), who applied their theories to education and social improvement in different dimensions. Jane Addams (1860-1935) was the social worker who founded the field also gained from this influence.
In recent times, a new generation has given pragmatism an expanded debate platform. A lot of these neopragmatists are not classical pragmatists however they are part of the same tradition. Related Site is Robert Brandom, whose work is focused on semantics and the philosophy of language, but also draws upon the philosophy of Peirce and James.
One of the main distinctions between the classical pragmatists and neo-pragmatists is their understanding of what it takes for an idea to be true. The classical pragmatists focused on a concept called 'truth-functionality,' which states that an idea is genuinely true if it is useful in practice. The neo-pragmatists instead insist on the notion of 'ideal warranted assertion, which states that an idea is true if the claim made about it is justified in a specific manner to a specific group of people.
This view is not without its flaws. It is often accused of being used to justify illogical and ridiculous ideas. One example is the gremlin idea it is a useful idea, it works in practice, but it is utterly unfounded and probably untrue. This isn't a huge problem, but it highlights one of the main weaknesses of pragmatism: it can be used as a reason for just about everything.
Significance
When making a decision, it is important to be pragmatic by taking into account the actual world and its surroundings. It may be a reference to the philosophy that focuses on practical considerations in the determining of truth, meaning or value. The term"pragmatism" was first used to describe this viewpoint around a century ago when William James (1842-1910) pressed it into service in an address at the University of California (Berkeley). James confidently claimed that the term was coined by his friend and mentor Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) however the pragmatist perspective soon gained a reputation all its own.
The pragmatists resisted the sharp dichotomies in analytic philosophy, such as mind and body, thoughts and experience, and synthesthetic and analytic. They also rebuffed the idea of truth as something fixed or objective, instead describing it as a constantly evolving socially-determined notion.
Classical pragmatists focused primarily on the theory of inquiry, meaning, and the nature of truth though James put these ideas to work in examining truth in religion. John Dewey (1859-1952) was an important influence on a second generation of pragmatists who applied this method to education, politics and other aspects of social improvement.
The neo-pragmatists of recent decades have attempted to place pragmatism in an overall Western philosophical context, and have traced the affinities of Peirce's theories with Kant and other idealists of the 19th century and the emerging science of evolutionary theory. They have also sought to clarify the role of truth in an original epistemology of a posteriori and to create a pragmatic metaphilosophy that includes the concept of meaning, language, and the nature of knowledge.
However, pragmatism continues to evolve and the a posteriori approach that it developed remains a significant departure from traditional approaches. The people who defend it have had to confront a variety of objections that are just as old as the theory itself, but which have been more prominently discussed in recent times. They include the notion that pragmatism is a flop when applied to moral issues, and that its claim that "what works" is little more than relativism, albeit with an unpolished appearance.
Methods
Peirce's epistemological strategy included a practical explanation. He saw it as an attempt to debunk false metaphysical concepts, such as the Catholic understanding transubstantiation and Cartesian certainty searching strategies in epistemology.
For a lot of modern pragmatists the Pragmatic Maxim is all that one can reasonably expect from an understanding of truth. They tend to avoid the deflationist theories of truth that require verification before they are valid. They advocate a different approach they call "pragmatic explanation". This is the process of explaining how the concept is used in practice and identifying conditions that must be met in order to confirm it as true.
This method is often criticized as a form relativism. But it is less extreme than the deflationist alternatives and therefore is a good way to get around some of the issues with relativist theories of truth.
In the wake of this, a number of liberatory philosophical projects like those that are linked to feminism, eco-philosophy, Native American philosophy, and Latin American philosophy, look for inspiration in the pragmatist traditions. Quine for instance, is an philosophical analyticist who has embraced pragmatism in a way that Dewey could not.
It is important to acknowledge that pragmatism is a rich concept in historical context, has a few serious flaws. Particularly, the pragmatism does not provide a meaningful test of truth and is not applicable to moral issues.
Some of the most prominent pragmatists, such as Quine and Wilfrid Sellars, also criticised the philosophy. Richard Rorty and Robert Brandom are among the philosophers who have reclaimed it from obscurity. Although these philosophers aren't classical pragmatists but they do owe a great deal to the philosophy of pragmatism, and draw on the work of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein in their writings. These works of philosophers are worth reading by anyone interested in this philosophy movement.