Pragmatic Genuine Philosophy Pragmatism is a philosophy that emphasizes the experience and context. It may not have an enlightened ethical framework or fundamental principles. This could result in a loss of idealistic aspirations and a shift in direction. In contrast to deflationary theories pragmatic theories do not deny the idea that statements are related to actual states of affairs. They only clarify the role that truth plays in everyday endeavors. Definition Pragmatic is a term used to describe things or people who are practical, rational and sensible. It is often contrasted with idealistic which refers to a person or idea that is based on ideals or high principles. When making a decision, the sensible person takes into consideration the real world and the circumstances. They concentrate on what is feasible instead of attempting to reach the ideal outcome. Pragmatism is a new philosophical movement that focuses on the importance of practical consequences in the determination of meaning, truth, or value. It is a third alternative to the dominant continental and analytical traditions. It was developed by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Josiah Royce, pragmatism developed into two competing streams of thought, one inclining towards relativism while the other toward the idea of realism. The nature of truth is a central issue in pragmatism. Many pragmatists recognize that truth is a valuable concept but they differ on the definition or how it is applied in the actual world. One approach that is inspired by Peirce and James, is focused on the ways in which people solve issues and make assertions. It also prioritizes the speech-act and justification tasks of language-users in determining if something is true. One approach, influenced Rorty's followers, concentrates more on the mundane functions of truth, like its ability to generalize, praise and caution and is less concerned with a complex theory of truth. The main flaw of this neo-pragmatic method of determining truth is that it flirts with relativism since the notion of "truth" is a concept with been a part of a long and rich tradition that it seems unlikely that it can be reduced to the nebulous uses to which pragmatists assign it. Another flaw is that pragmatism appears to be a way of thinking that does not believe in 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 in silence on metaphysical questions and Dewey's lengthy writings contain only one mention of the question of truth. Purpose The aim of pragmatism is to provide an alternative to analytic and Continental traditions of philosophy. Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and their Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1860-1916) were the first to introduce it's first generation. These classical pragmatists emphasized the importance of inquiry and meaning as well as the nature of truth. Their influence spread through several influential American thinkers including John Dewey (1859-1952), who applied their concepts to education as well as other aspects of social development, and Jane Addams (1860-1935) who founded social work. More recently a new generation of philosophers has given pragmatism a wider platform for discussion. Although they differ from classic pragmatists these neo-pragmatists consider themselves to be part of the same tradition. Robert Brandom is their main figure. His work is centered on semantics and the philosophy of language, but also draws inspiration from the philosophy of Peirce, James, and others. The neopragmatists have a 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 focus instead on the idea "ideal justified assertionibility," which says that an idea is truly true if it can be justifiable to a certain audience in a specific way. There are, however, some problems with this view. One of the most common complaints is that it could be used to justify all sorts of silly and illogical ideas. An example of this is the gremlin idea: It is a genuinely useful concept that works in practice, but it's totally unsubstantiated and most likely nonsense. It's not a major issue however it does highlight one of pragmatism's main flaws that it can be used to justify nearly anything, and that includes a myriad of absurd theories. Significance Pragmatic is a term that refers to practical, and relates to the consideration of actual world conditions and circumstances when making decisions. It could also refer to the philosophy that focuses on practical consequences in the determination of truth, meaning or value. William James (1842-1910) first used the term pragmatism to describe this perspective in a lecture at the University of California, Berkeley. James claimed he invented the term along with his mentor and colleague Charles Sanders Peirce, but the pragmatist view soon earned its own reputation. https://www.boredpanda.com/community/seieh56/ opposed the sharp dichotomies of analytic philosophy, such as mind and body, thought and experience, and synthesthetic and analytic. They also rejected the notion that truth was something that was fixed or objective, and instead treated it as a continuously evolving, socially determined concept. James used these themes to explore the truth of religion. A second generation shifted the pragmatist approach to education, politics, and other dimensions of social improvement under the great influence of John Dewey (1859-1952). In recent decades, the Neopragmatists have sought to place pragmatism within a wider Western philosophical context. They have analyzed the affinities between Peirce’s views and those of Kant, other 19th-century idealists and the emergence of the science of evolution theory. They also have sought to understand the role of truth in a traditional a posteriori epistemology and to create a pragmatic metaphilosophy which includes the concept of meaning, language and the nature of knowledge. However, pragmatism has continued to develop, and the epistemology of a posteriori that was developed is considered an important distinction from traditional approaches. The pragmatic theory has been criticized for centuries however, in recent years it has attracted more attention. They include the notion that pragmatism is a flop when applied to moral questions and its assertion that "what works" is nothing more than relativism, albeit with an unpolished appearance. Methods For Peirce his pragmatic understanding of truth was an essential part of his epistemological strategy. Peirce saw it as an attempt to debunk false metaphysical ideas such as the Catholic understanding transubstantiation and Cartesian certainty searching strategies in epistemology. For many contemporary pragmatists the Pragmatic Maxim is all that one can reasonably expect from an understanding of truth. They generally avoid false theories of truth that require verification to be valid. They advocate a different approach they refer to as "pragmatic explanation". http://www.drugoffice.gov.hk/gb/unigb/pragmatickr.com/ involves explaining the way a concept is applied in real life and identifying the criteria that must be met to be able to recognize it as valid. It is important to remember that this approach may still be viewed as a form 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 problems of relativist theories of reality. As a result, a variety of liberatory philosophical projects - like those relating to feminism, ecology, Native American philosophy and Latin American philosophy - currently look at the pragmatist tradition for direction. Quine, for example, is an analytical philosopher who has taken on the philosophy of pragmatism in a manner that Dewey could not. It is crucial to realize that pragmatism is a rich concept in the past, has its shortcomings. Particularly, philosophy of pragmatism is not a meaningful test of truth and is not applicable to moral questions. Some of the most prominent pragmaticists, like Quine and Wilfrid Sellars, also criticized the philosophy. Richard Rorty and Robert Brandom are among the philosophers who have revived the philosophy from the insignificance. While these philosophers are not classical pragmatists, they do have a lot in common with the philosophy of pragmatism and draw inspiration from the work of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein in their writings. These philosophers' works are well worth reading by anyone interested in this philosophy movement.