Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism places emphasis on experience and context. It may not have an enlightened ethical framework or foundational principles. This could result in an absence of idealistic ambitions and a shift in direction.
In contrast to deflationary theories about truth the pragmatic theories of truth don't reject the idea that statements are related to states of affairs. They simply clarify the role that truth plays in practical tasks.
Definition
The word pragmatic is used to describe people or things that are practical, logical and sensible. Highly recommended Internet site is often used to differentiate between idealistic, which is a person or an idea that is founded on ideals or high principles. A person who is pragmatic considers the actual world circumstances and conditions when making decisions, and is focused on what can be realistically achieved as opposed to trying to find the most effective theoretical course of action.
Pragmatism, a new philosophical movement, focuses on 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. Founded by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two distinct streams of thought, one inclining towards relativism while the other to realism.
The nature of truth is a major issue in the philosophy of pragmatism. While many pragmatists agree truth is an important concept, they disagree about how to define it and how it operates in practice. One approach, heavily influenced by Peirce and James, focuses on how people solve questions and make assertions and gives priority to 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, is focused more on the mundane functions of truth, such as its ability to generalize, commend and be cautious and is less focused on a complicated theory of truth.
The first flaw with this neo-pragmatic method of determining truth is that it stray with relativism since the notion of "truth" has such a long and long-standing history that it appears unlikely that it could be reduced to the mundane applications that pragmatists assign it. Another problem is that pragmatism appears to be a way of thinking that does not believe in the existence of truth, at a minimum 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 largely absent from metaphysics-related questions in Dewey's vast writings, whereas his works contain only one mention of the issue of truth.
Purpose
The purpose of pragmatism was to provide a different perspective to analytic and Continental traditions of philosophy. Its first generation was initiated by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James along as well as their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1855-1916). These classical pragmatists focused on theorizing inquiry, meaning and the nature of truth. Their influence was felt through several influential American thinkers, including John Dewey (1859-1952), who applied the concepts to education and other aspects of social improvement, and Jane Addams (1860-1935) who founded social work.
In recent years, a new generation has given pragmatism an expanded forum for discussion. Although they differ from the classic pragmatists these neo-pragmatists believe themselves to be part of the same tradition. Robert Brandom is their main persona. He focuses his research on semantics and philosophy of language but also draws from the philosophy of Peirce, James, and others.
Neopragmatists have an entirely different perception of what is required 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, on the other hand, concentrate on the concept 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.
There are however some issues with this theory. It is often accused of being used to support unfounded and absurd concepts. One example is the gremlin theory that is a truly useful concept that works in practice, but it is utterly unfounded and probably untrue. It's not a major issue however, it does point out one of the biggest flaws in pragmatism that it can be used to justify nearly anything, and that includes many absurd ideas.
Significance
Pragmatic means practical, relating to the consideration of real situations and conditions when making decisions. It may also refer to the philosophical view that stresses practical considerations in the determining of truth, meaning or value. 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 term 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 sharp dichotomies of analytic philosophy, such as mind and body, thought and experience and analytic and synthesthetic. They also rejected the idea that truth was something that was fixed or objective, and instead treated it as a dynamic socially-determined notion.
Classical pragmatists focused primarily on theorizing inquiry, meaning and the nature of truth though James put these themes to work by exploring the truth of religion. A second generation shifted the pragmatist view of education, politics and other facets of social improvement, under the great influence of John Dewey (1859-1952).
In recent years, Neopragmatists have sought to place pragmatism within a wider Western philosophical context. They have identified the commonalities between Peirce's views and the ideas of Kant and other idealists of the 19th century and the emergence of the science of evolution theory. They also sought to clarify truth's role 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 the origin of knowledge.
Yet, pragmatism continues to evolve, and the a posteriori epistemology that it developed is still regarded as an important distinction from traditional approaches. The defenders of pragmatism have had to confront a variety of objections that are as old as the pragmatic theory itself, but which have gained more attention in recent years. Some of these include the notion that pragmatism is ineffective when applied to moral issues and that its claim to "what works" is nothing more than relativism with an unpolished appearance.
Methods
Peirce's epistemological approach included a pragmatic explanation. He viewed it as a method to undermine metaphysical concepts that were false like the Catholic conception of transubstantiation Cartesian methods of seeking certainty in epistemology and Kant's notion of a 'thing-in-itself' (Simson 2010).
For a lot of modern pragmatists the Pragmatic Maxim is all that one can reasonably expect from an understanding of truth. They tend to steer clear of deflationist theories of truth that require verification to be legitimate. Instead they advocate a different method which they call 'pragmatic explication'. This is the process of explaining how an idea is utilized in practice and identifying conditions that must be met in order to confirm it as true.
This method is often criticized for being an example of form-relativism. It is less extreme than deflationist alternatives and can be an effective way to get out of some the relativist theories of reality's issues.
This has led to many philosophical liberation projects like those relating to feminism, ecology, Native American philosophy and Latin American philosophy - are currently looking to the pragmatist tradition as guidance. Quine, for example, is an analytic philosopher who has embraced pragmatism in a way that Dewey could not.
It is important to acknowledge that pragmatism, while rich in the past, has its flaws. In particular, pragmatism is unable to provide any valid test of truth, and it collapses when applied to moral issues.
A few of the most influential pragmatists, including Quine and Wilfrid Sellars, also criticised the philosophy. Yet it has been brought back from the ashes by a broad range of philosophers, such as Richard Rorty, Cornel West and Robert Brandom. These philosophers, while not being classical pragmatists are influenced by the philosophy and work of Peirce James and Wittgenstein. Their works are worth reading for anyone interested in this philosophy movement.