How does pragmatism differ from idealism

Preferred vs. Omage vs. Finally vs. Attendance vs. Latest Comparisons Tubercule vs. Glyptal vs. Faucet vs. Com vs. Destroyable vs. Aboriginal vs. Coelomate vs. Ocean vs. Judge vs. Flag vs. Forbear vs. Awesomely vs. Fat vs. Sonhood vs. Ricochet vs. Channel vs. Trending Comparisons. Mandate vs. Ivermectin vs. Skinwalker vs. Socialism vs. Man vs. Supersonic vs. Gazelle vs. Jem vs. It is the general aim of inquiry, and its particulars are identified by inquiry properly conducted; that is, it is belief properly fixed.

Thus, coming into possession of the truth at least with any reliability depends on proper conduct or practice: that is a basic tenet of pragmatism. But we can reconstruct what some of the reasoning must have been. One argument is an argument from historical influences: Peirce was expressly influenced by Kant and admits as well to influences from Schelling and Hegel. A similar argument might apply to Dewey, given his Hegelian roots. But such arguments are notoriously weak: Students, unlike apples, often do fall far from the tree, and it is a good thing too — otherwise philosophy could never really evolve.

Because of this, it might look like our mental states and activities play an important constitutive role in reality. The pragmatist believes that, as far as epistemology goes, our minds are fitted to the world by a combination of evolution and good epistemic practice.

The pragmatist does not believe that, epistemologically, the world is fitted to, much less made up from, our minds. A modicum of reflection quickly reveals several central tenets of particularly German idealism that the pragmatists accepted and mostly made their own. I would add here 8 articulated holisms of concept and justification. Rather, I want to make a more general observation. At a level of high abstraction, we can say that what is shared by the German Idealists and the pragmatists is a commitment to the priority of system.

This separates them decisively from the empiricist tradition, at least through Mill and his godson, Russell. Atomistic approaches to problems have proven very productive in the natural sciences, and this has been a steady source of inspiration for standard forms of empiricism, which held on to the idea that knowledge could be acquired in piecemeal, independent atoms and then assembled and elaborated into the structure we call empirical knowledge.

The empiricists also held that metaphysics, to the extent that it was possible at all, must also be a structure of atoms and molecules. Things do not make sense independently of some context. Kant recognized that representations, in particular, have sense only in the context of a whole representational system, and this imposes certain constraints on anything that counts as a representation. Kant saw that the representationality of mental acts depended crucially on their bearing systematic relations to other mental acts; by the time we reach Hegel that insight has been extended.

Our ability to think depends not only on our thoughts bearing systematic relations to other mental acts of ours, but also on their bearing systematic relations to the mental acts of others and systematic relations more generally to the world within which the whole shebang proceeds. He does not think that we can infer from the apparent systematicity of the world to its having been a designed creation.

But he does think that we need to think of the world as if it is designed in order to be able to discover the often-masked systematicity that must be there if we are to be able to cognize the world. The idea of a well-designed world functions as a regulative ideal informing, inspiring, and constraining our cognition.

He has, for instance, no patience with regulative ideals: A purpose that is forever and in principle beyond achievement is no real purpose at all. Hegel also does not draw the same connection between systematicity and design that Kant does. Peirce is certainly even clearer than Kant and Hegel were about the need for systematicity if one is going to make sense of the representationality of thought and our capacity to know the world within which we live.

But the model for the nature and origin of that systematicity shifts significantly. Darwin displaces God, not through apotheosis, but by giving us a model of designerless design that makes the hypothesis of God, as Laplace famously pointed out, not necessary, even if one recognizes the need for systematicity in human knowledge and the world it knows. If that is the case, then it will not account for a more general systematicity in the world, for the realm of the organic is quite limited, as far as we know.

The unity arises from the process itself; it does not lie in any goal or final cause. The pragmatic vision is a vision in which activity moves to the forefront in every case, for the world, like us humans, is busy making itself in the course of time. But that does not mean that the terms and the contrasts between them became meaningless.

There is a good sense and good reason to call Hegel an idealist; there is equally good sense and reason to deny that label to Peirce and Dewey, despite the fact that the larger structures of their views are deeply similar. There is a problem with such descriptions only when one loses sight of the complexity such simple terms often mask. Colvin Stephen S. Westphal eds. Miller, New York, Humanities Press. Miller, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cited by paragraph number.

Kant Immanuel, , Critique of Pure Reason , transl. Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kant Immanuel, , Correspondence , transl. Nidditch, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Peirce Charles S. References are to volume number, then paragraph number. Plato , , Theaetetus. Sophist , transl.

See Dewey See, e. The Sophist , cited by the traditional Stephanus numbers. Of course, the full story in the case of Hegel — why self-realization is the mark of true being — is vastly more complex than this, but as a first approximation, we can live with this characterization.

II, Ch. Nonetheless, he manifests some embarrassment with his notion of Reality, since, as he is well aware, he can not prove that an external independent Reality exists. Privacy Policy — About Cookies. Skip to navigation — Site map. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy. X-2 Pragmatism and Idealism. Pragmatism and Idealism. Outline Text References About the authors. Outline Introduction. Full text PDF Send by e-mail. Copyright Author retains copyright and grants the European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.

Top of page. Browse Index Authors. Follow us RSS feed.