Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that focuses on experience and context. It may not have an enlightened ethical framework or foundational principles. This could result in the loss of idealistic goals and a shift in direction.
In contrast to deflationary theories pragmatic theories do not deny the notion that statements are correlated to actual events. They merely define the role that truth plays in the practical world.
Definition
The word pragmatic is used to refer to people or things that are practical, rational and sensible. It is often used to distinguish between idealistic, which refers to an idea or a person that is founded on ideals or high principles. A pragmatic person looks at the actual world circumstances and conditions when making decisions, and is focused on what can be realistically accomplished, rather than trying to achieve the best practical course of action.
Pragmatism, a brand new philosophical movement, emphasizes the importance that practical consequences determine significance, truth or value. It is a third alternative to the dominant continental and analytical traditions. Founded by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two competing streams of thought, one tending towards relativism while the other towards realist thought.
프라그마틱 of truth is a central issue in pragmatism. Many pragmatists acknowledge that truth is a valuable concept however, they disagree on how to define it or how it works in practice. One approach, heavily influenced by Peirce & James, focuses on how people solve questions and make assertions and focuses on the speech-acts and justifying projects that users of language use to determine whether something is true. One method, which was influenced by Rorty's followers, focuses on the more mundane aspects of truth, including 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. It firstly, it flings with relativism. Truth is a concept that has such a rich and long tradition that it's unlikely that its meaning could be reduced to mundane applications as pragmatists do. Second, pragmatism appears to deny the existence of truth in its metaphysical aspect. This is reflected by the fact that pragmatists such as Brandom, who owes much to Peirce and James and are mostly in silence about metaphysics, while Dewey has only made one reference to truth in his extensive writings.
Purpose
Pragmatism seeks to offer an alternative to the continental and analytic traditions of philosophy. Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1860-1916) were the first to initiate its first generation. The classical pragmatists were adamant about theorizing inquiry and meaning, and the nature of truth. Their influence was felt by several influential American thinkers, including John Dewey (1859-1952), who applied their theories to education and other dimensions of social development, and Jane Addams (1860-1935) who created social work.
Recently, a new generation of philosophers has given pragmatism more space for debate. Many of these neopragmatists are not traditional pragmatists, but they are part of the same tradition. Robert Brandom is their main model. He focuses his work on semantics and the philosophy of language but also draws from the philosophy of Peirce, James, and others.
The neopragmatists have a different conception 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 states that an idea is genuinely true if a claim about it is justified in a certain way to a specific audience.
This view is not without its flaws. A common criticism is that it can be used to support all kinds of absurd and illogical ideas. The gremlin theory is a prime illustration: It's a good idea that is effective in practice but is unfounded and probably untrue. It's not a major problem however, it does point out one of the main flaws of pragmatism It can be used to justify nearly anything, and this is the case for many ridiculous ideas.
Significance
Pragmatic refers to the practical aspect of a decision, which is related to the consideration of real world conditions and situations when making decisions. It is also used to describe a philosophical position that emphasizes the practical implications in determining the meaning, truth or values. William James (1842-1910) first used the term "pragmatism" to describe this perspective in a speech he delivered at the University of California, Berkeley. James was adamant that the word had been coined by his friend and mentor Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) however, the pragmatist view quickly gained a name of its own.
The pragmatists opposed the sharp dichotomies in analytic philosophy like mind and body, thought and experience, as well as analytic and synthesthetic. They also rejected the notion that truth was a fixed or objective, and instead viewed it as a dynamic, socially determined concept.
Classical pragmatists focused primarily on the theory of inquiry, meaning, and the nature of truth however James put these ideas to work by exploring the truth of religion. A second generation turned the pragmatist view of education, politics and other facets of social improvement, under the great influence of John Dewey (1859-1952).
In recent decades, the neopragmatists have attempted to place pragmatism within a wider Western philosophical framework. They have traced the connections between Peirce's views and those of Kant, other 19th-century idealists and the emergence of the theory of evolution. They have also sought to understand the role of truth in a traditional epistemology of a posteriori, and to develop a pragmatic metaphilosophy which includes an understanding of meaning, language, and the nature of knowledge.
Yet, pragmatism continues to evolve and the a posteriori epistemology was developed is considered an important departure from more traditional methods. The pragmatic theory has been criticised for a long time but in recent times it has received more attention. Some of them include the notion that pragmatism doesn't work when applied to moral questions, and that its assertion of "what works" is nothing more than relativism that has an unpolished appearance.
Methods
The epistemological method of Peirce included a pragmatic elucidation. He saw it as a way of destroying false metaphysical notions like the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation, Cartesian epistemology that relies on certainty-seeking strategies and Kant's notion of a 'thing-in-itself' (Simson 2010).
The Pragmatic Maxim, according to many modern pragmatists is the best one can hope for from a theory about truth. They tend to avoid the deflationist theories of truth that require verification in order to be valid. Instead they advocate a different method, which they refer to as 'pragmatic explication'. This involves explaining how a concept can be used in practice and identifying the criteria that must be met in order to determine whether the concept is authentic.
It should be noted that this method could be viewed as a form of relativism and is often criticised for it. But it is more moderate than the alternatives to deflationism, and is thus a useful method of overcoming some of the issues with relativism theories of truth.
As a result of this, a variety of liberatory philosophical ideas that are related to feminism, eco-philosophy, Native American philosophy, and Latin American philosophy, look for inspiration in the pragmatist traditions. Furthermore, many analytic philosophers (such as Quine) have embraced pragmatism with a degree of enthusiasm that Dewey himself could not muster.
It is important to acknowledge that pragmatism is a rich concept in historical context, has some serious shortcomings. In particular, pragmatism is unable to provide any real test of truth, and it is a failure when applied to moral questions.
Quine, Wilfrid Solars and other pragmatists have also critiqued the philosophy. However, it has been reclaimed from obscurity by a wide range of philosophers, such as Richard Rorty, Cornel West and Robert Brandom. Although these philosophers aren't classical pragmatists, they do owe a great deal to the philosophy of pragmatism and draw on the work of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein in their writings. Their writings are worth reading for those who are interested in this philosophical movement.