Pragmatism: The "American Philsophy" At our last meeting, Brian Butler, Ph.D. discussed Pragmatism, often said to be an American philosophy because of its concern with 'what works'. Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, all Americans, get the reputation of being the main proponents of Pragmatism. Peirce separated himself somewhat from this label by calling himself a Pragmatacist rather than a Pragmatist. According to Dr. Butler, Pragmatism is not subject to easy definition but seems to involve six core ideas. According to Charles S. Peirce, the meaning of an idea or concept, etc. is found in 'how it is used'! What are the consequences of using it, of putting it into action? He emphasized looking at the results of using a theory or of holding a idea. The interaction of ideas, theories, beliefs, questions and inquiries held by various people and groups of people being put into action eventually 'point towards the truth'. These natural interactions result in a convergence of ideas and ultimately an agreement of sorts. This agreement is 'the truth'. He discussed "meaning pragmatism" vs "truth pragmatism". Any idea or concept, in order to be acceptable, must be fallible or subject to being proven false. Something had to be able to count against it. Any statement which allows no counter-argument and allows no evidence to count against it, is suspicious. Peirce would require that we 'look to the world' empirically for proof. Scientific concepts work! William James, abhorred the idea of 'truth' as a convergence of a group of ideas. There is perhaps no Truth (big T) but there are truths - ideas which are practical and work to get you what you need and want. Apparently being a practical man, he believed ideas should have 'cash value'. They should be personally useful. They should make a difference in the life of the individual who held them. It seems James understood the inherently expedient nature of intellect. John Dewey was an influential pragmatist whose work and ideas about education affect us even today. He was a great advocate of democracy and felt a democratic society was the best way to get to the truth.

Pragmatic truth and democracy, he held, were inseparable. He felt 'truth' must be in the service of democratic government and society. He seems to agree that 'truth' must have practical value and was arrived at through ultimate concensus, - sort of truth by committee. Three other pragmatists were briefly discussed: Nicholas Rescher, Hilary Putman, and Richard Rorty. Dr. Butler spent considerable time discussing pragmatism and the law. Legal process is based on 'the case method'. Cases are read, ideas are taken out of context, principles are extracted and applied to present cases. In this manner 'precedents' are set which can become legally binding and affect millions of people. Precedent doesn't seem to be working as they thought it would. The discussion which followed the presentation seemed to center around the idea of truth. What is truth? Is it something 'out there' waiting to be experienced or discovered? Is it conceptual and found in group concensus or is it silently hidden in individual experience? I got the strong impression that most people felt that only they could know 'their truth(s)'. Even if we seem to experience the same event at the same time and place, we all do so from different perspectives. Even though we may use the same word(s), they often have different meanings to us. A few words about Phenomenology to warm you up for the next meeting: Phenomenology literally means to give an account of phenomena. It attempts to describe how we assign meaning to things in our experience. There are three prominent and perhaps foreboding figures in phenomenology: Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, & Maurice Merleau-Ponty. At the discussion of Nov. 1, we will try to demystify some terms these philosophers use to get an understanding of the direction phenomenology has taken, and evaluate its progress over the past century in Germany, France and the USA. At the heart of the matter is understanding how we relate to the world in which we live, as well as our understanding of the relation between science and philosophy. We can discuss how well phenomenology has explained these relations. See you there.