Pragmatism is one of the original American contributions to philosophical thought. It is also a topic of discussion for social history. It's about the great thinkers, what they wrote and what they meant. Pierce, Holmes, etc. these were supporters of pragmatism: say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Pragmatism begins in the late 19th century and dominates American intellectual thought. Fields such as legal philosophy, philosophy itself, education, come to dominate these disciplines as they form. Pragmatism represents our fascination with practical things and a slight aversion to metaphysical contemplation. We want practical and useful things in the United States, and pragmatism expresses this desire very well. Pragmatism, however, was replaced in the 1940s and 1950s. It is, however, one of the key characteristics of liberalism. European reception to pragmatism has been rather mixed. It took on a pejorative meaning because it was so peculiarly American. Pragmatism is a better fit for the United States because of our unique social conditions. They see him as much more interested in immediate requirements than abstract moral principles. To some extent, this criticism is very true. By thinking of pragmatism as not concerned with abstract moral principles, Europeans have misunderstood in many ways. Pragmatism ultimately, as it developed from Peirce to James, was a philosophy of utility; a usefulness of ideas. As a philosophical system, it opposed the ideas of Descartes. For pragmatists, the creation of truth is not an individual process, it is not an individual ego interacting with the world; instead, the search is cooperative. For pragmatists, we acquiesce and agree to what is true. You accept what is true because it has some utility. Pragmatists do not question their existence. This allows you to create a philosophy of action; you have a degree of agency. For pragmatists, it's about having a sense of control. For pragmatists, everything is within our control. Everything we believe in is a function of our business. William James uses the idea that we cannot know what God or evil exists in the world, but we can recognize that people believe God exists to describe pragmatism regarding religion. It has a specific purpose and a specific utility. As an individual, you can believe that God exists or not, but you cannot doubt that other people believe that God exists. You cannot escape this fact. If you do a conscious act, you will force yourself to believe in God for this reason. This may not be convincing proof of God's existence, but it can serve as adequate proof. Pragmatists describe thoughtful and creative action, but overall they believe in action. You can talk about the existence of something like God, but you can remain practical by realizing that the truth about something may never be known. The most practical and useful information about a person is his vision of the universe, his sense of what he honestly experiences. and it means deeply. What he means by this is that when you perceive things, do you perceive them as a whole or as a part? A rationalist believes in the abstract, in eternal principles. The empiricist is a lover of facts. In understanding how an individual perceives the world. For example, a rationalist would say that there is an American character. They would believe in the monistic philosophy that all phenomena could be reduced to a simple principle. The rationalist would demonstrate that there is no such thing as an American, but an amalgam of several groups, and the experience of each of these groups is a fair explanation of what it means to be an American. This creates aplurality of entities so those guided by facts cannot deny that a variety of experiences exists. On the other hand, rationalists who orient themselves through the practical, the abstract, the eternal is thatThe American is a free-thinking person who respects his rights. If you know that this is how a person sees the world, you immediately understand how they will filter their experience, their perspective, and why it is very different from yours. People criticize pragmatism because it seems to embrace moral relativism. However, pragmatists understand this and follow it. If our qualities are unique to us, this undermines the ability of others to discount what something means to us. It helps show what people think about what the world is versus what it should be. If you face the world practically, for what it is and for what it exists. If we agree that there is no universal truth, we can accept the fact that everyone's truth is just as valid as everyone else's. Pragmatists intend to try a method of engaging the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For pragmatisms, there are equal truths for the very rich and the very poor. Encourage this plurality of experiences. Peirce, what he tried to do is explain how we understand objects. When we have an object that we want to be clear, we need to limit it to the scope of our experience: the behavior of an object in the real world. If we describe something that is difficult, we know that it is something that cannot be physically reshaped. We know it hurts to be hit by them. These are all practical effects and what the concept of hardness exists in. We know what hardness is because we have experienced it; it is rooted in the material, not the ideal. This philosophy of being particular. The philosophical system that Peirce tried to create reduces everything in terms of our individual experience with those objects and principles. The word pragmatism when William James writes about how we understand certain concepts. We're still trying to figure out how we know certain things: epistemology. James contributes to philosophy by translating a series of choices and options into the will to believe. When we are confronted with an object or idea, we have the ability to determine whether it is believable or incredible. If it makes sense to us or if it is not credible for a particular person. For James, this shows that an object is not true because of what it is, but whether it is determined to be something believable or incredible. The decision to choose what to do has transformed you into a system of binaries, of opposites. The vital option, he said, was whether it was equally plausible to be an agnostic or to be a Christian – they are equally plausible: to believe in God or not to believe in God from an intellectual point of view. What he finds plausible within a given society are his life options. We have the opportunity to make specific decisions that are avoidable. These are all logical and intellectual decisions you have to make. You also have evaluative options: what is a good idea, what is a moral idea. This, for James, is a personal decision. Make a conscious decision to believe something is good/moral or immoral/bad based on your decision about a given hypothesis. You choose to believe things as an individual because there are decisions that are practical for you. Jane Addams wrote an essay about what the options are for the people she was serving. They may or may not come, but if they come, they will receive help. You choose to believe that government regulation is bad or wrong, but that doesn't essentially make you right. It is equally plausible to conceive that government regulation could be a good thing. Can government be a positive agent for change? The argument for the emerging state.