Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that focuses on experience and context. It could be lacking a clear set of foundational principles or a coherent ethical framework. This could lead to an absence of idealistic ambitions and transformative change.
Contrary to deflationary theories pragmatic theories do not renounce the notion that statements are connected to actual states of affairs. They only define the role that truth plays in practical endeavors.
Definition
Pragmatic is a term that is used to describe things or people who are practical, rational and sensible. It is frequently used to differentiate between idealistic which is a person or an idea that is founded on high principles or ideals. When making decisions, the pragmatic person considers the real world and the current circumstances. They focus on what is achievable and realistically feasible instead of trying to find the ideal course of action.
Pragmatism, a brand new philosophical movement, stresses the importance that practical consequences have in determining meaning, truth or value. It is an alternative in contrast to the dominant continental and analytical traditions. It was founded by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two competing streams of thought, one tending toward relativism and the other towards the idea of realism.
One of the central issues in pragmatism concerns the nature of truth. While many pragmatists agree truth is a key concept, they are not sure how to define it and how it is used in practice. One approach, influenced heavily by Peirce and James, concentrates on how people resolve questions and make assertions and gives precedence to speech-acts and justifying projects that people use to determine the truth of an assertion. Another approach that is inspired by Rorty and his followers, focuses on the more mundane aspects of truth, namely its ability to generalize, commend and avert danger. It is also less concerned with the full-blown theory of truth.
The first flaw with this neo-pragmatic approach to truth is that it stray with relativism, as the notion of "truth" is a concept with been a part of a long and extensive history that it is unlikely that it could be reduced to the mundane uses to which pragmatists assign it. 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 evident in the fact that pragmatists, such as Brandom (who has an obligation to Peirce and James) are mostly silent on questions of metaphysics in Dewey's vast writings, whereas his works contain only one mention of the issue of truth.
Purpose
Pragmatism seeks to offer an alternative to the continental and analytic philosophical traditions. Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1860-1916) were the first to initiate its first generation. These classical pragmatists focused on the theory of inquiry as well as the nature of truth. Their influence spread to many influential American thinkers, including John Dewey (1860-1952), who applied their ideas to education as well as social improvement in different dimensions. Jane Addams (1860-1935), who founded social work, also benefited from this influence.
In recent times the new generation has given pragmatism a wider platform for discussion. Although they differ from the classic pragmatists these neo-pragmatists consider themselves to be part of the same tradition. Their principal figure is Robert Brandom, whose work is focused on semantics and the philosophy of language however, he also draws inspiration from the philosophy of Peirce and James.
Neopragmatists have an entirely different understanding of what it takes for an idea to be real. The classical pragmatists focused on a concept called 'truth-functionality,' which states that an idea is genuinely true if it is useful in practice. The neo-pragmatists instead insist on the notion of 'ideal warranted assertion, which states that an idea is genuinely true if a claim about it is justified in a certain way to a specific audience.
There are however some issues with this theory. A common criticism is that it could be used to justify all kinds of absurd and illogical ideas. The gremlin theory is a prime example: It's a useful idea that works in practice but is probably unfounded and absurd. This isn't a huge problem however, it does point out one of the biggest flaws in pragmatism that it can be used to justify nearly everything, which includes a myriad of absurd theories.
Significance
Pragmatic means practical, relating to the consideration of actual world conditions and circumstances when making decisions. It can also be used to describe a philosophical position that emphasizes the practical consequences in determining the meaning or truth. William James (1842-1910) first used the term pragmatism to describe this viewpoint in a lecture at the University of California, Berkeley. James swore he coined the term with his mentor and colleague Charles Sanders Peirce, but the pragmatist view soon earned its own reputation.
The pragmatists rejected the sharp dichotomies of analytic philosophy, such as mind and body, thoughts and experience, as well as analytic and synthesthetic. They also rejected the notion that truth was something fixed or objective, and instead viewed it like a constantly-evolving socially-determined concept.
James utilized these themes to explore truth in religion. John Dewey (1859-1952) was an important influence on a second generation of pragmatists who applied this approach to politics, education and other aspects of social improvement.
The neo-pragmatists of recent decades have attempted to place pragmatism within the larger Western philosophical context, and have traced the affinities of Peirce's ideas with Kant and other 19th century idealists and the emerging science of evolutionary theory. They have also sought to understand the role of truth in an original epistemology that is a posteriori and to create a pragmatic metaphilosophy that includes the concept of language, meaning and the nature of knowledge.
Despite this, pragmatism continues to evolve and the a posteriori approach that it came up with is a significant departure from traditional approaches. The people who defend it have had to face a myriad of arguments that are as old as the pragmatic theory itself, yet have received greater exposure in recent times. They include the notion that pragmatism is a flop when applied to moral issues, and that its claim that "what is effective" is nothing more than relativism, albeit with a less-polished appearance.
Methods
For Peirce the pragmatic explanation of truth was a key part of his epistemological approach. He believed it was an attempt to debunk false metaphysical notions like the Catholic understanding transubstantiation and Cartesian certainty seeking strategies in epistemology.
The Pragmatic Maxim, according to many modern pragmatists is the best one can expect from a theoretical framework about truth. They are generally opposed to the deflationist theories of truth that require verification to be valid. Instead they advocate a different method which they call "pragmatic explanation". This involves explaining how a concept can be used in practice and identifying the requirements to be met in order to accept the concept as authentic.
It should be noted that this approach may still be viewed as a type of relativism, and is often criticised for it. It is less extreme than deflationist options and can be an effective way to get out of some the relativist theories of reality's issues.
In the end, various philosophical ideas that are liberatory, like those relating to feminism, ecology, Native American philosophy and Latin American philosophy - are now looking to the pragmatist tradition for direction. Quine for instance, is an analytical philosopher who has taken on the pragmatist tradition in a way Dewey could not.
It is important to acknowledge that pragmatism, though rich in historical context, has its flaws. In particular, pragmatism fails 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 criticised the philosophy. Richard Rorty and Robert Brandom are among philosophers who have brought it from insignificance. While these philosophers are not classical pragmatists but they do have a lot in common with the pragmatism philosophy and draw upon the work of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein in their writings. that guy of these philosophers are well worth reading by anyone who is interested in this philosophy movement.