Pragmatism and Modern Criticism
Pragmatism has had a profound effect on human thought following the Enlightenment and even more so after the American Civil War. It has stimulated new ideas surrounding truth and how the individual pertains to the functions of society. This new method of thinking challenged many established rationales of government, religion, and science. Pragmatists offered what they considered to be a more realistic mode of reasoning, which incorporates real world factors and uses validation along with science to arrive at a greater state of truth.
Pragmatism revolutionized the way Americans conceive ideas with respect to religious or ethical views. This came at a time in American history where a few social concerns, such as slavery, women’s rights, and eminent domain, challenged the structure and immediate future of the United States. There were several early American thinkers, which gave an explanation of the most socially correct way to deal with the problems of the time. The most prominent of which was William James, Charles Pierce, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
William James was most well known for his explanation of how a human belief has a “cash value”. This was centered on the idea that a truth was not something conceived in the mind, but it had a direct correlation to the natural world. He made the comparison that religious and scientific beliefs were comparable, as they allowed humans to live more enjoyable lives. This gave some explanation to the world around us and even to things that could not be understood.
William James provided several theories which challenged the Darwinian mode of thinking. He argued that with certain truth being obtained from the world around us, that survival was more an idea of intelligence. Therefore, this idea took a higher rank in philosophy because Darwin’s theory argued that it was a matter of biological fitness which determined a species chances for survival. James’ ideas would add significant strength to the Pragmatic way of thinking because it would ultimately form a sense of compliance between the human mind and nature.
Charles Pierce was central in drafting a pragmatic method of problem solving which standardized the method of drawing conclusions based on observations. His Pragmatic Maxim was a way of clarifying ideas which he considered to be difficult by employing rational thought. His most successful means of this process is to bring to light the consequences which can be conceived through an idea and comparing it to the meaning of a concept. His goal was to ultimately draft a pragmatic view which was against political or social gain and was conducive to social equality.
Pierce was a staunch advocate for the scientific method, saying that it was the best way to conclude a problem of theoretical thought. He stated, however, that for an immediate answer with respect to a practical concept, it was better to use tradition and instinct. Pierce defended this theory by arguing that any theory which comes closest to the truth and best describes the world around us is therefore superior. He was very scientific in this action and uses rationalism and realism together to provide an easier and more time sensitive way to define a solution to society’s problems.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was a Supreme Court Justice in the early twentieth century and a combat veteran of the American Civil War. He recalled his days in the military and concluded that laws of the government were based on violence which eventually caused him to reject the idea of romanticism and all concept of natural law. Holmes was a strong proponent of common law in the United States which gave the authority and legal obligation for Judges to create law through their rulings. This was centered on the pragmatic idea that truth was determined by real life, almost tangible, causes and effects.
Curtis White encompasses many pragmatic views and uses them in contemporary situations. He is very expressive when it comes to the coexistence of Enlightenment and Christian ideas. White embodies all values of the imagination, or as he correlates it with, the spiritual sense. He emphasizes the importance of harnessing the desire to return to fundamental human behavior and expresses that this is one of several ways to sustain and converge the best ideas from both the Enlightenment and Christianity and mold them into one idea.
It is important to note that Pragmatism, as a way of processing thought, is very similar to that of historical thinking. Pragmatists rarely dismiss any idea contradictory to their own without substantial proof that negates its validity. Pragmatists often assume that there is no absolute truth in life, and neither do historians. This relates back to the scientific approach to problem solving as it prevents the mind from automatically dismissing an idea, essentially slowing down process.
Louis Menand wrote a very informative and comprehensive narrative which encompasses many of the early American thinkers from the era following the American Civil War. He cites many examples where pragmatism and metaphysics clash, but how pragmatists incorporate these ideas and modify them into their own, thusly making them more attractive to the American public, who was then faced with an array of social and political dilemmas. Menand incorporates Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Pierce, William James, and John Dewey and conveys a descriptive sense of how they were looking to draft an American solution to American problems. He expertly tells of the culmination of ideas these four men experienced and how they developed into pragmatists.
Reinhold Niebuhr describes an interesting contradiction between science and metaphysics. He states that if science rejects the suggestion of myth and the idea of metaphysics it will have only two choices when attempting to define truth in an absolute world. He describes one choice as the practice of visualizing the world as a mechanism with certain mechanical processes, which only encompasses a superficial view of humanity and unity, essentially removing any meaningfulness in the world. The second alternative, as described by Niebuhr, is to blend mythical and transcendent views of truth into science’s testimony of history. Niebuhr explains that modern Americans have maintained their spiritual life based on progress.
Menand reinforces this claim when he describes Pierce’s way of thinking about the criteria a belief must possess before it can be considered significant. Menand narrates that Pierce believed that if a belief was incapable of instituting change, it therefore had little importance or significance. This relates back to the basic pragmatic theory of holding a “cash value” and validating a belief with experience, as Pierce advocated. He continues to explain similarities between Niebuhr and Pierce’s views on the validity of a belief through observation. Menand diagnoses the problem that many non-pragmatic thinkers have is that they only consider their belief to be true or accurate if it directly reflects the “way things really are.”
Menand gives a very eloquent description of William James’ argument on the reality of a belief. He argues that James was convinced that a belief did not have to have a correspondence with reality to be valid. This was because imitating reality is not the primary purpose of having a mind, James argued. This was a significant statement by James as this was his first professional argument as a certified Psychologist and would bring pragmatism further into the scientific realm.
Pragmatism was a critical stage in human thought in America. It arose from civil and political unrest following the American civil war and aided in giving practical solutions to sensitive problems. This new idea was revolutionary in itself because pragmatic thinking forced many Americans seeking truth to obtain it through observation and validation. They might have considered any form of philosophy prior to this as simply theoretical because there were no “real world” examples to compare their ideas to. Pragmatism was especially important in the field of historical study because it prevents historians from rejecting any claim contradictory to their own theory. This assures that the historian will be reluctant to publish any historical analysis without solid proof and data to backup their argument. When weighing the benefits and shortcomings of Pragmatism, it may not be a philosophy that many humans can adopt, but many Americans can, as this philosophy is uniquely American.
References:
David Voelker, “Curtis White: The Spirit of Disobedience 3,” Ex Post Facto weblog, posted on December 12, 2007, [http://expostfacto.historytools.org/curtis-white-the-spirit-of-disobedience-3/] (accessed December 16, 2007).
Reinhold Niebuhr. “The Truth in Myths,” in The Nature of Religious Experience: Essays in Honor of Douglas Clyde Macintosh (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937), 122
Louis Menand. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. (Farrar Strauss and Giroux: New York), 356
Pragmatism revolutionized the way Americans conceive ideas with respect to religious or ethical views. This came at a time in American history where a few social concerns, such as slavery, women’s rights, and eminent domain, challenged the structure and immediate future of the United States. There were several early American thinkers, which gave an explanation of the most socially correct way to deal with the problems of the time. The most prominent of which was William James, Charles Pierce, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
William James was most well known for his explanation of how a human belief has a “cash value”. This was centered on the idea that a truth was not something conceived in the mind, but it had a direct correlation to the natural world. He made the comparison that religious and scientific beliefs were comparable, as they allowed humans to live more enjoyable lives. This gave some explanation to the world around us and even to things that could not be understood.
William James provided several theories which challenged the Darwinian mode of thinking. He argued that with certain truth being obtained from the world around us, that survival was more an idea of intelligence. Therefore, this idea took a higher rank in philosophy because Darwin’s theory argued that it was a matter of biological fitness which determined a species chances for survival. James’ ideas would add significant strength to the Pragmatic way of thinking because it would ultimately form a sense of compliance between the human mind and nature.
Charles Pierce was central in drafting a pragmatic method of problem solving which standardized the method of drawing conclusions based on observations. His Pragmatic Maxim was a way of clarifying ideas which he considered to be difficult by employing rational thought. His most successful means of this process is to bring to light the consequences which can be conceived through an idea and comparing it to the meaning of a concept. His goal was to ultimately draft a pragmatic view which was against political or social gain and was conducive to social equality.
Pierce was a staunch advocate for the scientific method, saying that it was the best way to conclude a problem of theoretical thought. He stated, however, that for an immediate answer with respect to a practical concept, it was better to use tradition and instinct. Pierce defended this theory by arguing that any theory which comes closest to the truth and best describes the world around us is therefore superior. He was very scientific in this action and uses rationalism and realism together to provide an easier and more time sensitive way to define a solution to society’s problems.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was a Supreme Court Justice in the early twentieth century and a combat veteran of the American Civil War. He recalled his days in the military and concluded that laws of the government were based on violence which eventually caused him to reject the idea of romanticism and all concept of natural law. Holmes was a strong proponent of common law in the United States which gave the authority and legal obligation for Judges to create law through their rulings. This was centered on the pragmatic idea that truth was determined by real life, almost tangible, causes and effects.
Curtis White encompasses many pragmatic views and uses them in contemporary situations. He is very expressive when it comes to the coexistence of Enlightenment and Christian ideas. White embodies all values of the imagination, or as he correlates it with, the spiritual sense. He emphasizes the importance of harnessing the desire to return to fundamental human behavior and expresses that this is one of several ways to sustain and converge the best ideas from both the Enlightenment and Christianity and mold them into one idea.
It is important to note that Pragmatism, as a way of processing thought, is very similar to that of historical thinking. Pragmatists rarely dismiss any idea contradictory to their own without substantial proof that negates its validity. Pragmatists often assume that there is no absolute truth in life, and neither do historians. This relates back to the scientific approach to problem solving as it prevents the mind from automatically dismissing an idea, essentially slowing down process.
Louis Menand wrote a very informative and comprehensive narrative which encompasses many of the early American thinkers from the era following the American Civil War. He cites many examples where pragmatism and metaphysics clash, but how pragmatists incorporate these ideas and modify them into their own, thusly making them more attractive to the American public, who was then faced with an array of social and political dilemmas. Menand incorporates Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Pierce, William James, and John Dewey and conveys a descriptive sense of how they were looking to draft an American solution to American problems. He expertly tells of the culmination of ideas these four men experienced and how they developed into pragmatists.
Reinhold Niebuhr describes an interesting contradiction between science and metaphysics. He states that if science rejects the suggestion of myth and the idea of metaphysics it will have only two choices when attempting to define truth in an absolute world. He describes one choice as the practice of visualizing the world as a mechanism with certain mechanical processes, which only encompasses a superficial view of humanity and unity, essentially removing any meaningfulness in the world. The second alternative, as described by Niebuhr, is to blend mythical and transcendent views of truth into science’s testimony of history. Niebuhr explains that modern Americans have maintained their spiritual life based on progress.
Menand reinforces this claim when he describes Pierce’s way of thinking about the criteria a belief must possess before it can be considered significant. Menand narrates that Pierce believed that if a belief was incapable of instituting change, it therefore had little importance or significance. This relates back to the basic pragmatic theory of holding a “cash value” and validating a belief with experience, as Pierce advocated. He continues to explain similarities between Niebuhr and Pierce’s views on the validity of a belief through observation. Menand diagnoses the problem that many non-pragmatic thinkers have is that they only consider their belief to be true or accurate if it directly reflects the “way things really are.”
Menand gives a very eloquent description of William James’ argument on the reality of a belief. He argues that James was convinced that a belief did not have to have a correspondence with reality to be valid. This was because imitating reality is not the primary purpose of having a mind, James argued. This was a significant statement by James as this was his first professional argument as a certified Psychologist and would bring pragmatism further into the scientific realm.
Pragmatism was a critical stage in human thought in America. It arose from civil and political unrest following the American civil war and aided in giving practical solutions to sensitive problems. This new idea was revolutionary in itself because pragmatic thinking forced many Americans seeking truth to obtain it through observation and validation. They might have considered any form of philosophy prior to this as simply theoretical because there were no “real world” examples to compare their ideas to. Pragmatism was especially important in the field of historical study because it prevents historians from rejecting any claim contradictory to their own theory. This assures that the historian will be reluctant to publish any historical analysis without solid proof and data to backup their argument. When weighing the benefits and shortcomings of Pragmatism, it may not be a philosophy that many humans can adopt, but many Americans can, as this philosophy is uniquely American.
References:
David Voelker, “Curtis White: The Spirit of Disobedience 3,” Ex Post Facto weblog, posted on December 12, 2007, [http://expostfacto.historytools.org/curtis-white-the-spirit-of-disobedience-3/] (accessed December 16, 2007).
Reinhold Niebuhr. “The Truth in Myths,” in The Nature of Religious Experience: Essays in Honor of Douglas Clyde Macintosh (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937), 122
Louis Menand. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. (Farrar Strauss and Giroux: New York), 356
posted by Shawn Niemann | 10:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home