Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy
Pragmatism is a philosophy that focuses on the experience and context. It may not have an enlightened ethical framework or a set of fundamental principles. This could result in a lack of idealistic aspirations or transformational changes.
In contrast to deflationary theories pragmatic theories do not deny the idea that statements are related to actual states of affairs. They simply elucidate the roles that truth plays in our daily tasks.
Definition
The term "pragmatic" is used to describe things or people that are practical, logical and sensible. It is often contrasted with idealistic which refers to an individual or idea that is based on ideals or principles of high quality. A pragmatic person looks at the real-world conditions and circumstances when making decisions, focusing on what can be realistically accomplished, rather than seeking to determine the most optimal theoretical course of action.
Pragmatism is a new philosophical movement that stresses the importance of practical implications in determining value, truth, or value. It is a third alternative to the dominant analytic and continental philosophical traditions. It was founded by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James with Josiah Royce as its founders, pragmatism grew into two competing streams that tended towards relativism and the second toward realist thought.
The nature of truth is a major issue in pragmatism. While many pragmatists agree truth is an important concept, they are not sure what it means and how it operates in practice. One method that is influenced by Peirce and James, concentrates on the ways in which people deal with issues and make assertions. It also prioritizes the speech-act and justification tasks of language-users when determining whether something is true. Another approach, inspired by Rorty and his followers, concentrates on the more mundane aspects of truth, namely its ability to generalize, recommend, and caution--and is less concerned with a complete theory of truth.
The primary flaw in this neo-pragmatic method of determining truth is that it flirts with relativism, as the concept of "truth" is a concept with been around for so long and has such a extensive history that it is unlikely that it could be reduced to the common uses to which pragmatists assign it. The second problem is that pragmatism seems to be a method that rejects the existence of truth, at the very least in its metaphysical sense. This is reflected in the fact that pragmatists such as Brandom (who has an obligation to Peirce and James) are generally absent from metaphysics-related questions in Dewey's vast writings, whereas his works have just one reference to the question of truth.
Purpose
The purpose of pragmatism was to provide a different perspective 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 start its first generation. 프라그마틱 정품확인 focused on the concept of meaning and inquiry, and the nature of truth. Their influence spread through several influential American thinkers including John Dewey (1859-1952), who applied the ideas to education and other dimensions of social improvement, and Jane Addams (1860-1935) who established social work.
In recent years, a new generation has given pragmatism a wider forum for discussion. A lot of these neopragmatists are not classical pragmatists however they consider themselves part of the same tradition. Their most prominent persona is Robert Brandom, whose work focuses on semantics and the philosophy of language, but also draws upon the philosophy of Peirce and James.
Neopragmatists have an entirely different perception of what is required 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. Neo-pragmatists instead focus on the concept of 'ideal justified assertibility', which states that an idea is truly true if it can be justified to a specific audience in a specific way.
This viewpoint is not without its challenges. It is often criticized as being used to support illogical and silly theories. An example of this is the gremlin idea that is a truly useful concept that works in the real world, but it is utterly unfounded and probably untrue. This is not a major problem, but it highlights one of the major problems with pragmatism. It can be used as a justification for almost anything.
Significance
Pragmatic refers to the practical aspect of a decision, which is related to the consideration of actual world conditions and circumstances when making decisions. It is also used to refer to a philosophical perspective that emphasizes the practical implications in determining the meaning, truth or values. William James (1842-1910) first used the term "pragmatism" to describe this viewpoint in a speech he delivered at the University of California, Berkeley. James claimed he invented the term with his mentor and colleague Charles Sanders Peirce, but the pragmatist perspective soon gained its own fame.
프라그마틱 불법 resisted the stark dichotomies that are inherent in analytic philosophy such as truth and value thoughts and experiences mind and body, synthetic and analytic, and other such distinctions. They also rejected the notion of truth as something fixed or objective and instead treated it as a dynamic socially-determined notion.
James used these themes to investigate the truth of religion. A second generation shifted the pragmatist view of education, politics and other aspects of social improvement under the influence of John Dewey (1859-1952).
In recent decades, the neopragmatists have attempted to place the pragmatism in a larger Western philosophical context. They have analyzed the connections between Peirce's views and the ideas of Kant and other idealists of the 19th century 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 that includes an understanding of meaning, language, and the nature of knowledge.
However, pragmatism continues to evolve and the a posteriori model that it developed remains a significant departure from traditional approaches. The people who defend it have had to confront a variety of objections that are just as old as the theory itself, yet have received greater exposure in recent years. One of them is the notion that pragmatism is ineffective when applied to moral issues and that its claim "what works" is nothing more than relativism with an unpolished appearance.
Methods
For Peirce the pragmatic explanation of truth was a key element of his epistemological plan. He viewed it as a way of destroying false metaphysical notions like the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation, Cartesian methods of seeking certainty in epistemology and Kant's notion of a 'thing in itself' (Simson 2010).
For many contemporary pragmatists the Pragmatic Maxim is all that one can reasonably expect from an understanding of truth. In this sense, they tend to steer clear of deflationist theories of truth that require verification in order to be deemed valid. They advocate a different approach they call "pragmatic explanation". This is the process of explaining the way in which a concept is utilized in the real world and identifying the conditions that must be met in order to accept the concept as authentic.
It should be noted that this approach could be seen as a form of relativism and is often criticised for it. However, it is less extreme than alternatives to deflationism, and is thus a useful way to get around some of the issues with relativism theories of truth.
As a result of this, a number of liberatory philosophical projects like those that are linked to eco-philosophy and feminism, Native American philosophy, and Latin American philosophy, look for guidance in the pragmatist traditions. Quine is one example. He is an analytic philosopher who has embraced the pragmatist tradition in a way Dewey could not.
Although pragmatism has a long history, it is important to recognize that there are also some significant flaws in the philosophy. Particularly, pragmatism does not provide an accurate test of truth and is not applicable to moral issues.
Some of the most important pragmatists, such as Quine and Wilfrid Sellars, also criticised the philosophy. Yet it has been reclaimed from obscurity by a diverse 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 works of philosophers are well recommended to anyone interested in this philosophy movement.