Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that focuses on the experience and context. It might not have a clear set of foundational principles or an encapsulated ethical framework. This could result in the absence of idealistic goals or transformational change.
Contrary to deflationary theories, pragmatic theories do not deny the idea that statements are correlated to actual states of affairs. They simply elucidate the role that truth plays in our daily tasks.
Definition
The word pragmatic is used to describe things or people that are practical, logical and sensible. It is frequently used to differentiate between idealistic, which is an idea or a person that is based upon high principles or ideals. A person who is pragmatic considers the actual world conditions and circumstances when making decisions, focusing on what can realistically be achieved as opposed to seeking to determine the most optimal practical course of action.
Pragmatism is an emerging philosophical movement that emphasizes the importance of practical implications in determining meaning, truth or value. It is an alternative to the dominant analytical and continental traditions. It was founded by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two competing streams of thought, one inclining toward relativism and the other to realist thought.
One of the central issues in pragmatism is the nature of truth. Many pragmatists recognize that truth is a valuable concept but disagree on the definition or how it functions in practice. One method that is inspired by Peirce and James, concentrates on the ways in which people deal with problems and make assertions and prioritizes the speech-act and justification processes of language-users when determining whether something is true. One of the approaches, influenced by Rorty's followers, is focused more on the mundane functions of truth, including its ability to generalize, recommend and be cautious, and is less focused on a complicated theory of truth.
The first flaw with this neo-pragmatic approach to truth is that it stray with relativism, since the notion of "truth" has been a part of a long and rich tradition that it seems unlikely that it could be reduced to the nebulous applications that pragmatists assign it. In addition, pragmatism seems to reject the existence of truth in its metaphysical aspect. This is evident in the fact that pragmatists such as Brandom (who is owed a debt to Peirce and James) are generally in silence on metaphysical questions and Dewey's lengthy writings contain only one mention of the issue of truth.
Purpose
Pragmatism is a philosophy that aims to provide 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 start its first generation. These classical pragmatists focused on theorizing inquiry as well as the nature of truth. Their influence grew to many influential American thinkers, including John Dewey (1860-1952), who applied their ideas to education and social improvement in different dimensions. Jane Addams (1860-1935) was the social worker who founded the field, also benefited from this influence.
Recently a new generation of philosophers have given pragmatism a wider platform to discuss. Although they differ from the traditional pragmatists, a lot of these neo-pragmatists consider themselves to be part of the same tradition. Their principal persona is Robert Brandom, whose work focuses on semantics and the philosophy of language, but also draws upon the philosophy of Peirce and James.
One of the major differences between the classic 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. Neo-pragmatists focus on the idea of 'ideal warranted assertion, which states that an idea is true if a claim made about it is justified in a certain way to a specific audience.
This idea has its problems. It is often criticized for being used to support unfounded and absurd ideas. The gremlin hypothesis is an example of this: It's an concept that can be applied in real life but is unfounded and probably nonsense. This is not an insurmountable issue however, it does point out one of the biggest flaws in pragmatism It can be used to justify nearly anything, and that includes many absurd ideas.
Significance
When making decisions, the term "practical" refers to taking into account the world as it is and its surroundings. It could be used to refer to a philosophy that focuses on practical considerations in the determining of truth, meaning or value. The term"pragmatism" 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 was adamant that the word was coined by his colleague and mentor Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) however the pragmatist perspective quickly earned a name of its own.
The pragmatists rejected the stark dichotomies in analytic philosophy, such as value and fact, thought and experience, mind and body, synthetic and analytic and so on. They also rejected the notion that truth was a fixed or objective, and instead viewed it like a constantly-evolving socially-determined notion.
Classical pragmatics primarily focused on theorizing inquiry, meaning and the nature of truth, however James put these ideas to work by exploring the truth of religion. A subsequent generation applied the pragmatist approach to 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 analyzed the commonalities between Peirce's ideas and the ideas of Kant, other 19th-century idealists, and the emerging science of evolution theory. They have also attempted to understand the significance of truth in a traditional epistemology of a posteriori and to formulate a pragmatic metaphilosophy which includes an understanding of meaning, language and the nature of knowledge.
Despite this the fact that pragmatism is still evolving and the a posteriori approach that it came up with is an important departure from conventional approaches. The people who defend it have had to grapple with a number of arguments that are as old as the pragmatic theory itself, but which have gained more attention in recent times. These include the idea that pragmatism simply implodes when applied to moral questions and its assertion that "what is effective" is little more than relativism, albeit with a less-polished appearance.
Methods
For Peirce his pragmatic understanding of truth was an essential part of his epistemological approach. He saw it as an opportunity to discredit false metaphysical notions, such as the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation and Cartesian certainty seeking strategies in epistemology.
For many modern pragmatists, the Pragmatic Maxim is all that one can reasonably expect from a theory of truth. They generally avoid deflationist theories of truth which require verification to be valid. Instead they advocate a different method they refer to as "pragmatic explanation". This is the process of explaining how a concept is applied in practice and identifying requirements that must be met to confirm it as true.
This method is often criticized for being a form relativism. But it's more moderate than the alternatives to deflationism, and thus is a great way to get around some of the issues associated with relativism theories of truth.
As a result, various liberatory philosophical projects - such as those associated with feminism, ecology, Native American philosophy and Latin American philosophy - currently look at the pragmatist tradition for guidance. Quine, for example, is an philosophical analyticist who has embraced the pragmatist tradition in a way Dewey could not.
It is important to recognize that pragmatism is a rich concept in the past, has its flaws. Particularly, pragmatism does not provide an accurate test of truth, and it fails when applied to moral questions.
A few 프라그마틱 of the most influential pragmatists, such as Quine and Wilfrid Sellars, also criticized the philosophy. Nevertheless, it has been reclaimed from obscurity by a wide variety of philosophers, including Richard Rorty, Cornel West and Robert Brandom. While these philosophers are not traditional pragmatists, they contribute significantly to the philosophy of pragmatism and draw on the work of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein in their writings. These philosophers' works are worth reading by anyone interested in this philosophy movement.