Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that emphasizes experience and context. It may lack a clear set of foundational principles or a coherent ethical framework. This can lead to an absence of idealistic ambitions and transformative change.
In contrast to deflationary theories about truth, pragmatic theories of truth do not reject the idea that statements are related to current events. They simply explain the roles that truth plays in our daily endeavors.
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 person that is based upon ideals or principles of high quality. A person who is pragmatic looks at the real world conditions and circumstances when making decisions, and is focused on what can be realistically accomplished rather than trying to achieve the best theoretical course of action.
Pragmatism, a brand new philosophical movement, emphasizes the importance that practical implications determine significance, truth or value. It is a third alternative to the dominant continental and analytic tradition of philosophy. It was founded by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two distinct streams of thought, one that tended toward relativism and the other toward the idea of realism.
One of the most important issues in pragmatism concerns the nature of truth. While many pragmatists agree that truth is a key concept, they differ on what it means and how it operates in practice. One approach, influenced heavily by Peirce and James, concentrates on how people resolve problems & make assertions, and gives priority to the speech-acts and justification projects that people use to determine whether something is true. One approach, influenced Rorty's followers, is focused on the more mundane aspects of truth, including its ability to generalize, recommend and caution and is less focused on a complicated theory of truth.
This neopragmatic view of the truth has two flaws. First, it flirts with relativism. Truth is a concept that has such a rich and long tradition that it's unlikely its meaning could be reduced to a few commonplace uses as pragmatists do. Another problem is that pragmatism appears to be a way of thinking that rejects the existence of truth, at a minimum in its substantial metaphysical form. This is reflected in the fact that pragmatists such as Brandom (who owes an obligation to Peirce and James) are generally silent on questions of metaphysics and Dewey's lengthy writings have only one reference to the question of truth.
Purpose
Pragmatism seeks to offer an alternative to the continental and analytic philosophical traditions. The first generation was started by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James along as well as their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1855-1916). The classical pragmatists were focused on theorizing inquiry, meaning and the nature of truth. Their influence spread through many influential American thinkers like John Dewey (1859-1952), who applied the theories to education and other aspects of social improvement, as well as Jane Addams (1860-1935) who founded social work.
More recently a new generation of philosophers has given pragmatism more space for discussion. A lot of these neopragmatists are not traditional pragmatists, but they are part of the same tradition. Their principal model 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 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 concentrate on the notion of "ideal justified assertionibility," which states that an idea is true if it is justified to a particular audience in a specific way.
There are however some issues with this theory. It is often criticized for being used to support unfounded and silly theories. A simple example is the gremlin idea: It is a genuinely useful concept that works in the real world, but it is totally unsubstantiated and most likely absurd. This is not a major issue, but it does highlight one of the biggest weaknesses of 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 could be used to refer to a philosophy that focuses on practical considerations in the determining of truth, meaning or value. William James (1842-1910) first used the term "pragmatism" to describe this viewpoint in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley. James was adamant that the word was coined by his friend and mentor Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), but the pragmatist outlook soon gained a reputation all its own.
The pragmatists resisted the sharp dichotomies in analytic philosophy, such as mind and body, thought and experience, as well as synthesthetic and analytic. They also rebuffed the idea of truth as something fixed or objective and instead treated it as a dynamic, socially-determined concept.
Classical pragmatists were focused on the theory of inquiry, meaning and the nature of truth though James put these ideas to work by exploring the truth of religion. John Dewey (1859-1952) was a major influence on a new generation of pragmatists who applied the approach to education, politics and other aspects of social improvement.
In recent years, the Neopragmatists have tried to put the pragmatism in a larger Western philosophical framework. They have analyzed the connections between Peirce's ideas and the ideas of Kant and other idealists of the 19th century and the emergence of the theory of evolution. They also sought to understand the role of truth in an original epistemology of a priori and develop a pragmatic Metaphilosophy that includes views on language, meaning, and the nature and origin of knowledge.
Yet, pragmatism continues to evolve, and the epistemology of a posteriori that was developed is considered a significant departure from more traditional methods. The people who defend it have had to confront a variety of arguments that are as old as the pragmatic theory itself, but which have gained more attention in recent years. These include the idea that pragmatism simply implodes when applied to moral issues and its assertion that "what is effective" is nothing more than relativism, albeit with a less-polished appearance.
Methods
For Peirce, pragmatic elucidation of truth was an essential part of his epistemological approach. He viewed it as a method of destroying false metaphysical notions such as the Catholic conception of transubstantiation Cartesian methods of seeking certainty in epistemology and Kant's concept of a 'thing in itself' (Simson 2010).
The Pragmatic Maxim, according to many modern pragmatists, is considered to be the most accurate thing you can expect from a theory about truth. They are generally opposed to false theories of truth that require verification to be valid. Instead, they advocate an alternative method which they call "pragmatic explication". This is the process of explaining how a concept is applied in the real world and identifying conditions that must be met to confirm it as true.
프라그마틱 플레이 is often criticized as a form of relativism. However, it is more moderate than the deflationist alternatives, and thus is a great method of overcoming some of the issues associated with relativism theories of truth.
As a result of this, a number of liberatory philosophical initiatives, such as those associated to eco-philosophy, feminism, Native American philosophy, and Latin American philosophy, look for inspiration in the pragmatist tradition. Additionally many analytic philosophers (such as Quine) have taken on pragmatism with the kind of enthusiasm that Dewey himself could not manage.
While pragmatism has a rich history, it is important to recognize that there are also some important flaws in the philosophy. In particular, pragmatism is unable to provide any meaningful test of truth, and it fails when applied to moral issues.
Quine, Wilfrid Solars and other pragmatists have also criticised the philosophy. Richard Rorty and Robert Brandom are among the philosophers who have revived the philosophy from its obscurity. Although these philosophers aren't classical pragmatists, they do contribute significantly to the philosophy of pragmatism, 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.