Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that is based on experience and context. It may not have a clear ethical framework or fundamental principles. This can lead to an absence of idealistic goals or a radical changes.
Contrary to deflationary theories pragmatic theories do not renounce the idea that statements are connected to actual events. They only define the role that truth plays in the practical world.
Definition
The word pragmatic is used to describe people or things that are practical, logical and sensible. It is often contrasted with idealistic which is an idea that is based on ideals or high principles. A pragmatic person looks at the real world conditions and circumstances when making decisions, focusing on what is realistically accomplished rather than seeking to determine the most optimal practical course of action.
Pragmatism is a new philosophical movement that stresses the importance of practical implications in determining truth, meaning or value. It is a third alternative philosophy to the dominant analytical and continental traditions. Founded by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two opposing streams of thought, one that tended towards relativism, the other to realist thought.
The nature of truth is a major issue in pragmatism. Many pragmatists agree that truth is a valuable concept, but disagree on the definition or how it functions in practice. One approach that is inspired by Peirce and James, focuses on the ways in which people tackle questions and make assertions. It prioritizes the speech-act and justification projects of language-users when determining whether truth is a fact. Another approach, that is influenced by Rorty and his followers, concentrates on the more mundane aspects of truth--the way it serves to generalize, recommend and warn--and is not concerned with a complete theory of truth.
The first flaw with this neo-pragmatic view of truth is that it stray with relativism, as the notion of "truth" is a concept with been around for so long and has such a extensive history that it is unlikely that it can be reduced to the mundane purposes that pragmatists give it. Another flaw is that pragmatism also seems to be a method that denies the existence of truth, at the very least in its metaphysical sense. This is reflected in the fact that pragmatists such as Brandom (who is owed a debt to Peirce and James) are generally absent from metaphysics-related questions, while Dewey's extensive writings contain only one mention of the question of truth.
Purpose
The purpose of pragmatism was to offer an alternative to analytic and Continental traditions of philosophy. The first generation of pragmatists was founded by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James along as well as their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1855-1916). These classical pragmatists focused on the importance of inquiry and meaning and the nature of truth. Their influence grew to numerous influential American thinkers, such as John Dewey (1860-1952), who applied their ideas to education as well as social improvement in different dimensions. Jane Addams (1860-1935) was the social work pioneer who created social work, also benefited from this influence.
Recently 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 of philosophers have given pragmatism a larger platform to discuss. While they are different from classic pragmatists the neo-pragmatists claim to be part of the same tradition. Robert Brandom is their main persona. He focuses his work on semantics and philosophy of language, but draws inspiration from the philosophy of Peirce, James, and others.
One of the primary distinctions between the classic pragmatics and the neo-pragmatists lies in 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. Neo-pragmatists focus instead on the concept of 'ideal justified assertibility', which declares that an idea is true if it can be justified to a specific audience in a specific way.
There are, however, some problems with this view. A common criticism is that it can be used to support any number of ridiculous and illogical theories. The gremlin hypothesis is an example: It's a useful idea that is effective in practice but is unsubstantiated and likely absurd. This is not a major problem, but it highlights one of the major weaknesses of pragmatism: it can be used as a reason for nearly anything.
Significance
Pragmatic is a term that refers to practical, and relates to the consideration of actual world conditions and circumstances when making decisions. It can also be used to refer to a philosophical perspective that focuses on the practical consequences when determining the meaning or truth. The term pragmatism was first used to describe this viewpoint about a century ago, when William James (1842-1910) pressed into service in an address at the University of California (Berkeley). James scrupulously swore that the word had been coined by his friend and mentor Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) however, the pragmatist view soon gained a reputation all its own.
The pragmatists rejected the sharp dichotomies of analytic philosophy like mind and body, thoughts and experience, and analytic and synthesthetic. They also rebuffed the idea of truth as something that is fixed or objective and instead treated it as a continuously evolving, socially-determined concept.
James utilized these themes to study truth in religion. John Dewey (1859-1952) was an influential figure on a second generation of pragmatists who applied this approach to education, politics and other aspects of social improvement.
The neo-pragmatists of recent decades have made an effort to place pragmatism in a broader Western philosophical context, by tracing the affinities of Peirce's theories with Kant and other idealists of the 19th century and the new science of evolutionary theory. They have also attempted to understand the role of truth in a traditional epistemology that is a posteriori and to formulate a pragmatic metaphilosophy that includes the concept of language, meaning and the nature of knowledge.
However, pragmatism continues to evolve and the a posteriori model that it developed remains an important departure from conventional methods. Its defenders have been forced to grapple with a number of objections that are as old as the theory itself, yet have received greater exposure in recent years. These include the idea that pragmatism is a flop when applied to moral questions, and that its claim that "what works" is nothing more than a form of relativism with a less-polished appearance.
Methods
Peirce's epistemological strategy included a pragmatic elucidation. Peirce saw it as an attempt to debunk false metaphysical notions like the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation and Cartesian certainty searching strategies in epistemology.
The Pragmatic Maxim, according to many modern pragmatists, is considered to be the most accurate thing you can expect from a theoretical framework about truth. As such, they tend to steer clear of deflationist theories of truth that need to be verified to be legitimate. They advocate for a different method they call "pragmatic explanation". This involves explaining the way a concept is applied in practice and identifying criteria that must be met to confirm it as true.
It is important to remember that this method could be viewed as a form of relativism, and indeed is often criticised for doing so. It is not as extreme as deflationist alternatives, and is an effective method of getting past some the relativist theories of reality's issues.
As a result of this, a lot of liberatory philosophical initiatives that are related to eco-philosophy, feminism, Native American philosophy, and Latin American philosophy, look for inspiration in the pragmatist tradition. Additionally, many philosophers who are analytic (such as Quine) have embraced pragmatism with a degree of enthusiasm that Dewey himself was unable to attain.
It is important to recognize that pragmatism, though rich in historical context, has its flaws. Particularly, pragmatism fails to provide any meaningful test of truth, and it fails when applied to moral questions.
A few of the most influential pragmaticists, like Quine and Wilfrid Sellars, also criticised the philosophy. Yet, it has been reclaimed from the ashes by a broad range of philosophers, including Richard Rorty, Cornel West and Robert Brandom. While these philosophers are not classical pragmatists, they do contribute significantly to the pragmatism philosophy and draw upon the work of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein in their writings. Their works are worth reading for those who are interested in this philosophical movement.