چکیده:
Prof. Haack answers a series of questions on pragmatism, beginning with the origins of this tradition in the work of Peirce and James, its evolution in the work of Dewey and Mead, and its influence beyond the United States in, for example, the Italian pragmatists and the radical British pragmatist F. C. S. Schiller. Classical pragmatism, she observes, is a rich and varied tradition from which there is still much to be learned—as the many ways her own work in logic, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, and philosophy of law has been informed by the old pragmatists testify. Of late, however, this tradition has been misunderstood, impoverished, and vulgarized by self-styled neo-pragmatists; here, Haack turns her attention specifically to the conception of pragmatism as essentially a political philosophy, and the near-vacuous equation of pragmatism with “problem-solving.”
خلاصه ماشینی:
Haack answers a series of questions on pragmatism, beginning with the origins of this tradition in the work of Peirce and James, its evolution in the work of Dewey and Mead, and its influence beyond the United States in, for example, the Italian pragmatists and the radical British pragmatist F.
Classical pragmatism, she observes, is a rich and varied tradition from which there is still much to be learned—as the many ways her own work in logic, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, and philosophy of law has been informed by the old pragmatists testify.
Of late, however, this tradition has been misunderstood, impoverished, and vulgarized by self-styled neo-pragmatists; here, Haack turns her attention specifically to the conception of pragmatism as essentially a political philosophy, and the near-vacuous equation of pragmatism with “problem-solving.
4 So when I write of “classical pragmatism” I will refer to the philosophical tradition that grew out of Peirce’s and James’s discussions at the Metaphysical Club; and, like most scholars, I will include the jurisprudence of Oliver Wendell Holmes as well as the philosophical work of John Dewey and George Herbert Mead under this rubric.
I can testify from my own experience of speaking about pragmatism to audiences in law, in economics, and in the social sciences generally that practitioners of other disciplines still find the classical pragmatist tradition useful today: the “institutional economists” who look to Dewey’s social philosophy, for example, and the legal theorists who appeal to Peirce’s account of abduction.