PHIL-P 319 AMERICAN PRAGMATISM (3 CR.)
1 classes found
Spring 2024
Component | Credits | Class | Status | Time | Day | Facility | Instructor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LEC | 3 | 31428 | Closed | 1:15 p.m.–2:30 p.m. | MW | SW 218 | Sussman D |
Regular Academic Session / In Person
LEC 31428: Total Seats: 26 / Available: 0 / Waitlisted: 0
Lecture (LEC)
- COLL (CASE) A&H Breadth of Inq
- COLL (CASE) A&H Breadth of Inquiry credit
Arising in the aftermath of the Civil War, pragmatism is often considered to be United States¿ most distinctive contribution to philosophy. Pragmatism is associated most strongly with the work of C.S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey (having been revived more recently by such figures as W.V.O. Quine, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty). There are major differences between views of Peirce, James, and Dewey (views that themselves change dramatically over time). Even so, these thinkers share a hostility to any metaphysical system-building that pretends to provide an account of the ultimate foundations and essence of truth, meaning, and knowledge. Inspired by the collaborative nature of scientific inquiry and democratic politics, the pragmatists see ideas and theories more as tools the value of which depends on how well they help us cope with the particular tasks we face in our lives together. Philosophical thinking is here conceived not as an attempt to uncover universal, timeless truths, but as an open-ended process of experimentation to find better ways of advancing our common interests. For the pragmatists, truth cannot be separated from what works, and so reason cannot be divorced from the broader social practices that we use to collectively identify and deal with our practical problems. Pragmatism thus manages to avoid the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that largely consumed continental philosophy in the same period. But in turning from the theoretical to the practical this way, can pragmatism avoid being swallowed up by politics? Or does pragmatism ultimately devolve into a shallow relativism or technocratic instrumentalism, unable to really criticize or revise our understandings of the basic problems we face (or just who "we" really are in the first place)?