Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that focuses on experience and context. It might not have a clear ethical framework or a set of fundamental principles. This could result in an absence of idealistic ambitions and a shift in direction.
In contrast to deflationary theories pragmatic theories do not reject the idea that statements are correlated to actual events. They simply explain the role truth plays in practical endeavors.
Definition
The word pragmatic is used to describe things or people that are practical, rational and sensible. It is often contrasted with idealistic which refers to an individual or idea that is based on ideals or high principles. When making decisions, the pragmatic person is aware of the world and the current circumstances. They focus on what is realistically achievable rather than trying to achieve the ideal outcome.
Pragmatism is a new philosophical movement, focuses on the importance that practical consequences determine what is true, meaning or value. It is a third alternative in contrast to the dominant continental and analytical traditions. Founded by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two distinct streams of thought, one tending towards relativism while the other to realism.
One of the most important problems in pragmatism is the nature of truth. Many pragmatists agree that truth is a valuable concept but they differ on how to define it or how it is applied in practice. One method that is that is influenced by Peirce and James, focuses on the ways people deal with questions and make assertions. It prioritizes the speech-act and justification processes of language-users in determining whether something is true. One method, which was influenced by Rorty's followers, concentrates more on the mundane functions of truth, like its ability to generalize, commend and avert danger, and is less concerned with an elaborate theory of truth.
This neopragmatic interpretation of truth has two flaws. First, it flirts with relativism. Truth is a concept with an extensive and long-standing history that it's unlikely its meaning can be reduced to a few commonplace applications as pragmatists do. Another flaw is that pragmatism also 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 by the fact that pragmatists, like Brandom who owe a lot to Peirce and James but are uninformed about metaphysics. Dewey has only made one mention of truth in his many writings.
Purpose
Pragmatism seeks to offer an alternative to the analytic and continental philosophical traditions. Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1860-1916) were the first to initiate its first generation. These classical pragmatists focused on the theory of inquiry, meaning and the nature of truth. 프라그마틱 데모 was felt by a number influential American thinkers, including John Dewey (1860-1952), who applied their ideas to education and social improvement in various dimensions. Jane Addams (1860-1935), who founded social work was also a beneficiary of this influence.
In recent years the new generation of philosophers have given pragmatism a wider platform for discussion. Many of these neopragmatists are not classical pragmatists but they consider themselves part of the same tradition. Their most prominent figure is Robert Brandom, whose work is centered around semantics and the philosophy of language but who also draws on the philosophy of Peirce and James.
Neopragmatists have an entirely different 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. Neo-pragmatists focus on the idea of 'ideal warranted assertibility,' which says that an idea is true if a claim about it is justified in a specific manner to a specific group of people.
There are, however, some issues with this perspective. It is often accused of being used to support unfounded and silly ideas. The gremlin theory is a prime example: It's a useful idea that is effective in practice but is unsubstantiated and likely absurd. This isn't a major issue, but it does highlight one of the biggest problems with pragmatism. It can be used as a reason for nearly anything.
Significance
Pragmatic refers to the practical aspect of a decision, which is related to the consideration of real world conditions and circumstances when making decisions. It can also be used to refer to a philosophical perspective that emphasizes the practical implications when determining the meaning, truth or values. William James (1842-1910) first employed the term pragmatism describe this perspective in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley. James confidently claimed that the term was coined by his colleague and mentor Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) however, the pragmatist view quickly gained a name of its own.
The pragmatists opposed analytic philosophy's sharp dichotomies, such as mind and body, thoughts and experience, and synthesthetic and analytic. They also rejected the notion that truth was something fixed or objective, and instead treated it as a dynamic socially-determined notion.
James used these themes to study the truth of religion. A subsequent generation applied the pragmatist approach to politics, education and other facets of social development under the great influence of John Dewey (1859-1952).
The neo-pragmatists of recent decades have made an effort to place pragmatism within a broader Western philosophical context, and have traced the affinities of Peirce's ideas with Kant and other idealists of the 19th century, as well as with the emergence of the science of evolutionary theory. They also sought to clarify the role of truth in an original a priori epistemology and develop a pragmatic Metaphilosophy that includes views of the meaning of language, as well as the nature and origin of knowledge.
However the pragmatism that it has developed continues to evolve and the a posteriori approach that it developed remains distinct from the traditional methods. The pragmatic theory has been criticized for a long time but in recent times it has received more attention. One of them is the notion that pragmatism is ineffective when applied to moral questions, and that its claim "what works" is nothing more than relativism with an unpolished appearance.
Methods
The epistemological method of Peirce included a pragmatic explanation. He believed it was an opportunity to discredit false metaphysical concepts like the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation and Cartesian certainty searching strategies in epistemology.
For many contemporary pragmatists the Pragmatic Maxim is all that one can reasonably expect from a theory of truth. They are generally opposed to deflationist theories of truth which require verification before they are valid. Instead they advocate a different method they refer to as 'pragmatic explication'. This is about explaining how a concept is used in the real world and identifying the criteria that must be met in order to accept the concept as authentic.
This method is often criticized as an example of form-relativism. It is not as extreme as deflationist alternatives and can be an effective way to get around some of the problems of relativist theories of reality.
This has led to many liberatory philosophical projects - like those that are associated with feminism, ecology, Native American philosophy and Latin American philosophy - are now looking at the pragmatist tradition for direction. Additionally, many analytic philosophers (such as Quine) have taken on pragmatism with the kind of enthusiasm that Dewey himself was unable to attain.
While pragmatism has a rich legacy, it is important to note that there are significant flaws in the philosophy. In particular, pragmatism fails to provide any meaningful test of truth, and it is a failure when applied to moral issues.
Some of the most prominent pragmatists, such as Quine and Wilfrid Sellars, also criticised the philosophy. Yet, it has been reclaimed from the ashes by a broad range of philosophers, such as Richard Rorty, Cornel West and Robert Brandom. While these philosophers are not classical pragmatists but they do owe a great deal to the philosophy of pragmatism and draw inspiration from the work of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein in their writings. Their writings are worth reading for anyone interested in this philosophy movement.