Category: Pragmatism

Introduction to Pragmatic Theories of Truth

Pragmatic theories of truth are usually associated either with C.S. Peirce’s proposal that true beliefs will be accepted “at the end of inquiry” or with William James’ proposal that truth be defined in terms of utility. More broadly, however, pragmatic theories of truth focus on the connection between truth and epistemic practices, notably practices of inquiry and assertion. Depending on the particular pragmatic theory, true statements might be those that are useful to believe, that are the result of inquiry, that have withstood ongoing examination, that meet a standard of warranted assertibility, or that represent norms of assertoric discourse. Like other theories of truth pragmatic theories of truth are often put forward as an alternative to correspondence theories of truth. Unlike correspondence theories, which tend to see truth as a static relation between a truth-bearer and a truth-maker, pragmatic theories of truth tend to view truth as a function of the practices people engage in, and the commitments people make, when they solve problems, make assertions, or conduct scientific inquiry. More broadly, pragmatic theories tend to emphasize the significant role the concept of truth plays across a range of disciplines and discourses: not just scientific and fact-stating discourse but also ethical, legal, and political discourse as well.

Pragmatic theories of truth have the effect of shifting attention away from what makes a statement true and toward what people mean or do in describing a statement as true. While sharing many of the impulses behind deflationary theories of truth, pragmatic theories also tend to view truth as more than just a useful tool for making generalizations. Pragmatic theories of truth thus emphasize the broader practical and performative dimensions of truth-talk, stressing the role truth plays in shaping certain kinds of discourse. These practical dimensions, according to pragmatic theories, are essential to understanding the concept of truth.

The Evolution and Ambiguity of Pragmatic Theories

As these references to pragmatic theories would suggest, over the years a number of different approaches have been classified as “pragmatic”. This points to a degree of ambiguity that has been present since the earliest formulations of the pragmatic theory of truth: for example, the difference between Peirce’s claim that truth is “the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate” and James’ claim that truth “is only the expedient in the way of our thinking”. Since then the situation has arguably gotten worse, not better. The often-significant differences between various pragmatic theories of truth can make it difficult to determine their shared commitments, while also making it difficult to critique these theories overall. Issues with one version may not apply to other versions, which means that pragmatic theories of truth may well present more of a moving target than do other theories of truth. While few today would equate truth with expedience or utility there remains the question of what the pragmatic theory of truth stands for and how it is related to other theories. Still, pragmatic theories of truth continue to be put forward and defended, often as serious alternatives to more widely accepted theories of truth.

Historical Development of the Pragmatic Theory

The history of the pragmatic theory of truth is tied to the history of classical American pragmatism. According to the standard account, C.S. Peirce gets credit for first proposing a pragmatic theory of truth, William James is responsible for popularizing the pragmatic theory, and John Dewey subsequently reframed truth in terms of warranted assertibility. More specifically, Peirce is associated with the idea that true beliefs are those that will withstand future scrutiny; James with the idea that true beliefs are dependable and useful; Dewey with the idea that truth is a property of well-verified claims.

Charles Sanders Peirce’s Pragmatic Theory of Truth

The American philosopher, logician and scientist Charles Sanders Peirce is generally recognized for first proposing a “pragmatic” theory of truth. Peirce’s pragmatic theory of truth is a byproduct of his pragmatic theory of meaning. In a frequently-quoted passage in “How to Make Our Ideas Clear”, Peirce writes that, in order to pin down the meaning of a concept, we must: Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.

The meaning of the concept of “truth” then boils down to the “practical bearings” of using this term: that is, of describing a belief as true. What, then, is the practical difference of describing a belief as “true” as opposed to any number of other positive attributes such as “creative”, “clever”, or “well-justified”? Peirce’s answer to this question is that true beliefs eventually gain general acceptance by withstanding future inquiry. This gives us the pragmatic meaning of truth and leads Peirce to conclude, in another frequently-quoted passage, that: All the followers of science are fully persuaded that the processes of investigation, if only pushed far enough, will give one certain solution to every question to which they can be applied.…The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth.

Peirce realized that his reference to “fate” could be easily misinterpreted. In a less-frequently quoted footnote to this passage he writes that “fate” is not meant in a “superstitious” sense but rather as “that which is sure to come true, and can nohow be avoided”. Over time Peirce moderated his position, referring less to fate and unanimous agreement and more to scientific investigation and general consensus. The result is an account that views truth as what would be the result of scientific inquiry, if scientific inquiry were allowed to go on indefinitely. In 1901 Peirce writes that: Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief.

Consequently, truth does not depend on actual unanimity or an actual end to inquiry: If Truth consists in satisfaction, it cannot be any actual satisfaction, but must be the satisfaction which would ultimately be found if the inquiry were pushed to its ultimate and indefeasible issue.

As these references to inquiry and investigation make clear, Peirce’s concern is with how we come to have and hold the opinions we do. Some beliefs may in fact be very durable but would not stand up to inquiry and investigation. For Peirce, a true belief is not simply one we will hold onto obstinately. Rather, a true belief is one that has and will continue to hold up to sustained inquiry. In the practical terms Peirce prefers, this means that to have a true belief is to have a belief that is dependable in the face of all future challenges. Moreover, to describe a belief as true is to point to this dependability, to signal the belief’s scientific bona fides, and to endorse it as a basis for action.

By focusing on the practical dimension of having true beliefs, Peirce plays down the significance of more theoretical questions about the nature of truth. In particular, Peirce is skeptical that the correspondence theory of truth—roughly, the idea that true beliefs correspond to reality—has much useful to say about the concept of truth. The problem with the correspondence theory of truth, he argues, is that it is only “nominally” correct and hence “useless” as far as describing truth’s practical value. In particular, the correspondence theory of truth sheds no light on what makes true beliefs valuable, the role of truth in the process of inquiry, or how best to go about discovering and defending true beliefs. For Peirce, the importance of truth rests not on a “transcendental” connection between beliefs on the one hand and reality on the other, but rather on the practical connection between doubt and belief, and the processes of inquiry that take us from the former to the latter: If by truth and falsity you mean something not definable in terms of doubt and belief in any way, then you are talking of entities of whose existence you can know nothing, and which Ockham’s razor would clean shave off. Your problems would be greatly simplified, if, instead of saying that you want to know the “Truth”, you were simply to say that you want to attain a state of belief unassailable by doubt.

For Peirce, a true belief is one that is indefeasible and unassailable—and indefeasible and unassailable for all the right reasons: namely, because it will stand up to all further inquiry and investigation. In other words, if we were to reach a stage where we could no longer improve upon a belief, there is no point in withholding the title “true” from it.

William James’ Popularization of Pragmatism

Peirce’s contemporary, the psychologist and philosopher William James, gets credit for popularizing the pragmatic theory of truth. In a series of popular lectures and articles, James offers an account of truth that, like Peirce’s, is grounded in the practical role played by the concept of truth. James, too, stresses that truth represents a kind of satisfaction: true beliefs are satisfying beliefs, in some sense. Unlike Peirce, however, James suggests that true beliefs can be satisfying short of being indefeasible and unassailable: short, that is, of how they would stand up to ongoing inquiry and investigation. James writes that: Ideas…become true just in so far as they help us get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience, to summarize them and get about among them by conceptual short-cuts instead of following the interminable succession of particular phenomena.

True ideas, James suggests, are like tools: they make us more efficient by helping us do what needs to be done. James adds to the previous quote by making the connection between truth and utility explicit:

Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally. This is the ‘instrumental’ view of truth.

While James, here, credits this view to John Dewey and F.C.S. Schiller, it is clearly a view he endorses as well. To understand truth, he argues, we must consider the pragmatic “cash-value” of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas. True beliefs, he suggests, are useful and dependable in ways that false beliefs are not: you can say of it then either that “it is useful because it is true” or that “it is true because it is useful”. Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing.

John Dewey’s Reframing of Truth

In the early twentieth century Peirce’s writings were not yet widely available. As a result, the pragmatic theory of truth was frequently identified with James’ account—and, as we will see, many philosophers did view it as obviously wrong. James, in turn, accused his critics of willful misunderstanding: that because he wrote in an accessible, engaging style his critics “have boggled at every word they could boggle at, and refused to take the spirit rather than the letter of our discourse”. However, it is also the case that James tends to overlook or intentionally blur—it is hard to say which—the distinction between giving an account of true ideas and giving an account of the concept of truth. This means that, while James’ theory might give a psychologically realistic account of why we care about the truth his theory fails to shed much light on what the concept of truth exactly is or on what makes an idea true. And, in fact, James often seems to encourage this reading. In the preface to The Meaning of Truth he doubles down by quoting many of his earlier claims and noting that “when the pragmatists speak of truth, they mean exclusively something about the ideas, namely their workableness”. James’ point seems to be this: from a practical standpoint, we use the concept of truth to signal our confidence in a particular idea or belief; a true belief is one that can be acted upon, that is dependable and that leads to predictable outcomes; any further speculation is a pointless distraction.

What then about the concept of truth? It often seems that James understands the concept of truth in terms of verification: thus, “true is the name for whatever idea starts the verification-process, useful is the name for its completed function in experience”. And, more generally:

Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification-processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc., are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them.

James seems to claim that being verified is what makes an idea true, just as having a lot of money is what makes a person wealthy. To be true is to be verified:

Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its veri-fication. Its validity is the process of its valid-ation.

Like Peirce, James argues that a pragmatic account of truth is superior to a correspondence theory because it specifies, in concrete terms, what it means for an idea to correspond or “agree” with reality. For pragmatists, this agreement consists in being led “towards that reality and no other” in a way that yields “satisfaction as a result”. By sometimes defining truth in terms of verification, and by unpacking the agreement of ideas and reality in pragmatic terms, James’ account attempts to both criticize and co-opt the correspondence theory of truth. It appears James wants to have his cake and eat it too.

John Dewey, the third figure from the golden era of classical American pragmatism, had surprisingly little to say about the concept of truth especially given his voluminous writings on other topics. On an anecdotal level, as many have observed, the index to his 527 page Logic: The Theory of Inquiry has only one reference to “truth”, and that to a footnote mentioning Peirce. Otherwise the reader is advised to “See also assertibility”.

At first glance, Dewey’s account of truth looks like a combination of Peirce and James. Like Peirce, Dewey emphasizes the connection between truth and rigorous scientific inquiry; like James, Dewey views truth as the verified result of past inquiry rather than as the anticipated result of inquiry proceeding into an indefinite future. For example, in 1911 he writes that:

From the standpoint of scientific inquiry, truth indicates not just accepted beliefs, but beliefs accepted in virtue of a certain method.…To science, truth denotes verified beliefs, propositions that have emerged from a certain procedure of inquiry and testing. By that I mean that if a scientific man were asked to point to samples of what he meant by truth, he would pick…beliefs which were the outcome of the best technique of inquiry available in some particular field; and he would do this no matter what his conception of the Nature of Truth.

Furthermore, like both Peirce and James, Dewey charges correspondence theories of truth with being unnecessarily obscure because these theories depend on an abstract (and unverifiable) relationship between a proposition and how things “really are”. Finally, Dewey also offers a pragmatic reinterpretation of the correspondence theory that operationalizes the idea of correspondence:

Our definition of truth…uses correspondence as a mark of a meaning or proposition in exactly the same sense in which it is used everywhere else…as the parts of a machine correspond.

Dewey has an expansive understanding of “science”. For Dewey, science emerges from and is continuous with everyday processes of trial and error—cooking and small-engine repair count as “scientific” on his account—which means he should not be taken too strictly when he equates truth with scientific verification. Rather, Dewey’s point is that true propositions, when acted on, lead to the sort of predictable and dependable outcomes that are hallmarks of scientific verification, broadly construed. From a pragmatic standpoint, scientific verification boils down to the process of matching up expectations with outcomes, a process that gives us all the “correspondence” we could ask for.

Dewey eventually came to believe that conventional philosophical terms such as “truth” and “knowledge” were burdened with so much baggage, and had become so fossilized, that it was difficult to grasp the practical role these terms had originally served. As a result, in his later writings Dewey largely avoids speaking of “truth” or “knowledge” while focusing instead on the functions played by these concepts. By his 1938 Logic: The Theory of Inquiry Dewey was speaking of “warranted assertibility” as the goal of inquiry, using this term in place of both “truth” and “knowledge”. In 1941, in a response to Russell entitled “Propositions, Warranted Assertibility, and Truth”, he wrote that “warranted assertibility” is a “definition of the nature of knowledge in the honorific sense according to which only true beliefs are knowledge”. Here Dewey suggests that “warranted assertibility” is a better way of capturing the function of both knowledge and truth insofar as both are goals of inquiry. His point is that it makes little difference, pragmatically, whether we describe the goal of inquiry as “acquiring more knowledge”, “acquiring more truth”, or better yet, “making more warrantably assertible judgments”.

Thanks to Russell and others, by 1941 Dewey was aware of the problems facing pragmatic accounts of truth. In response, we see him turning to the language of “warranted assertibility”, drawing a distinction between “propositions” and “judgments”, and grounding the concept of truth in scientific inquiry. These adjustments were designed to extend, clarify, and improve on Peirce’s and James’ accounts. Whether they did so is an open question. Certainly many, such as Quine, concluded that Dewey was only sidestepping important questions about truth: that Dewey’s strategy was “simply to avoid the truth predicate and limp along with warranted belief”.

Critiques and Evolution of Pragmatic Theories

Peirce, James, and Dewey were not the only ones to propose or defend a pragmatic theory of truth in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Others, such as F.C.S. Schiller, also put forward pragmatic theories (though Schiller’s view, which he called “humanism”, also attracted more than its share of critics, arguably for very good reasons). Pragmatic theories of truth also received the attention of prominent critics, including Russell, Moore, Lovejoy among others. Several of these criticisms will be considered later; suffice it to say that pragmatic theories of truth soon came under pressure that led to revisions and several successor approaches over the next hundred-plus years.

Conclusion: The Legacy and Impact of Pragmatic Theories of Truth

Historically Peirce, James, and Dewey had the greatest influence in setting the parameters for what makes a theory of truth pragmatic—this despite the sometimes significant differences between their respective accounts, and that over time they modified and clarified their positions in response to both criticism and over-enthusiastic praise. While this can make it difficult to pin down a single definition of what, historically, counted as a pragmatic theory of truth, there are some common themes that cut across each of their accounts. First, each account begins from a pragmatic analysis of the meaning of the truth predicate. On the assumption that describing a belief, claim, or judgment as “true” must make some kind of practical difference, each of these accounts attempts to describe what this difference is. Second, each account then connects truth specifically to processes of inquiry: to describe a claim as true is to say that it either has or will stand up to scrutiny. Third, each account rejects correspondence theories of truth as overly abstract, “transcendental”, or metaphysical. Or, more accurately, each attempts to redefine correspondence in pragmatic terms, as the agreement between a claim and a predicted outcome. While the exact accounts offered by Peirce, James, and Dewey found few defenders—by the mid-twentieth century pragmatic theories of truth were largely dormant—these themes did set a trajectory for future versions of the pragmatic theory of truth.

Pragmatism is the Theory that the intelligence function is not to know to find, but to know to act. William James defended an idea is true only when it has been proven, but can he argue that an idea is only true because it is already true. We can also understand that an idea is true only if it is useful, which may mean that any idea is born of a practice, that is to say that abstract representations of systems are born concrete conditions, which have their own development and determine the scope of their validity. This thesis is found both in the case of history through dialectical materialism, in the case of the psychology of knowledge and psychoanalysis, where the taste for truth expresses an interest to another order.

Pragmatism has an ordinary meaning and a philosophical meaning. Pragmatism is a philosophical school founded in the 19th century by philosophers and scientists who opposed the modern metaphysics and the dichotomy of theory / practice. The ‘founding fathers’ are Peirce, James, Dewey, Mead and ‘new pragmatists’ are Rorty, Putnam, Quine, Goodman. The philosophy of pragmatism born in America has been criticized by some philosophers of Europe, such as Russell and Popper, who accused him of being a ‘philosophy for engineers’ because of its emphasis on practice. However, pragmatism is more a philosophy than a set of unique philosophies, as evidenced by the variety of options that are his own about the relationship between truth and meaning, cognition and action, science, morality and art. Pragmatism is also, thanks to Dewey, a significant contribution to the philosophy of technology.

Pragmatism is primarily a method of philosophy designed to ‘make our ideas clear’ and to avoid confusion by referring our ideas to their practical effects. The basic rule stated by Peirce’s pragmatism is: ‘Look what the practical effects that you think can be produced by the object of your design: the design of all these effects is the whole of your conception of the object’ . Similarly, for James, if there is no practical difference on the effects of two different concepts, then they refer to the same thing. Still, representatives of pragmatism have developed a variety of designs, including the crucial concept of truth. For Peirce, truth is a belief state based on a perfect and complete information associated with the completion of an investigation conducted by a community of researchers, for James, truth is not a property of objects but of ideas and indicates the completion of a verification process on the basis of a criterion of satisfaction or utility to an individual or community, and finally, to Dewey, the truth is a ‘assertibility guarantee’ that depends on an ability to build an adequate justification about an assertion.

One of the destroyers of pragmatism in Europe, Russell, considered the instrumental conception of truth is both logically inconsistent and politically dangerous. In this, he says pragmatism is a ‘philosophy for engineers’, waiting theories that they conform to the wishes of men of action, or men of faith. As for Popper, he believed that pragmatism leads to confusion between science and technology, assimilating scientific theories to simple calculation rules, ‘rules computational’. Contemporary pragmatists such as Rorty responded by arguing that there is no way any rational method of research, or Discourse on Method or Logic of Scientific Discovery. The true and the good can not be discovered by any “method” scientific or philosophical, but only through the discussion in a human community whose outcome is contingent. However, for Putnam, another neo-pragmatist, if we can reach the truth, at least we can demand that our assertions that they have a rational acceptability involves a set of justifications.

In fact, unlike the other pragmatists, Peirce the logician and the psychologist James, Dewey has covered most areas of philosophy, from logic to politics. Dewey’s logic is actually a ‘theory of inquiry’, the survey is an ability common to all living things, man as animal. Living things have continued to experience a situation forming a unified whole, but in case of breakage, they undertake to restore the unity and balance the situation through an investigation. In this way, a situation initially determined, but which is disrupted by a failure to become permanent, is transformed into a new position determined by a survey.

The ethics of Dewey rejects the conventional opposition between ethics and teleology. In addition, he said, a trial practice is reflective, not just an impulse or a habit again, a value-judgment is constitutive, relational and exploratory. For Dewey, the model of reasoning for a fixed and limited survey means is not adequate, because the ends are also the causes of consequences that require evaluation of their value.

Finally, the policy of Dewey opposed the doctrine of liberalism based on the notion of negative liberty and supports the positive freedom. The realization of individual freedom in an industrial society requires in his participation, consultation and deliberation of the people and a smart political control of political institutions. Democracy for Dewey is a political system whose purpose is to protect the interests of the people in respect of a ruling class made up of experts. The method of democracy is the social survey designed to explore the issues in debate and resolve disputes.

Dewey is one of the founding fathers of pragmatism to have made a significant contribution to the philosophy of technology. He developed a particular philosophical history of technology, identifying three types of objectification. In the case of Aborigines, for example, there is no scientific interaction with their environment, so that the objectification is minimal. In the case of Greek thinkers, Plato and Aristotle, the purpose of the experiment are abstract, and are reduced to objects of eternal knowledge, so that objectification is impossible. However, in the modern age, instrumentation and moving from observation to experimentation makes the objectification not only possible, but maximum. Thus, the use of technical methods in science involves handling and reduction, suggesting that once reduced, the properties of a thing can be manipulated to use more wide.

Dewey also defends a broad conception of technology, embracing both art than science. He rejects the hierarchy of knowledge and certainty that ranks first theoria, followed by praxis and finally the poiesis. Moreover, he refuses the divorce between theory and practice, which are only different phases of a survey intelligent: the theory is ‘best act’, the practice is ‘the idea made’. Dewey describes science as a kind of productive technique involving trials and tests, including abstract mathematics. He rejects the opposition between ‘fine art’ and ‘Arts and Crafts’ which is actually the product of the distinction between ends and means. Technology is an activity twice as Dewey technical and social adjustment in the world, science-based and designed to meet human needs. However, Dewey was aware of the gap between two cultures, the impact of science on society through its technical developments. That’s why he felt such a threat requires counterparties, which he called the name of ‘moral technology’.

Later, the technology took a much wider meaning, becoming synonymous with the method of the investigation. Nevertheless, to Dewey, all that men do does not necessarily mean an adjustment to their environment, so much so that all human activity is not technology.

Ultimately, philosophy, or rather, the philosophies of pragmatism, reflections of the American ‘spirit’, appear as a major trend and recognized in Western philosophy, as well as a significant contribution to contemporary philosophy of technology. Pragmatism has built America into a genuine philosophical tradition, in opposition to that of Europe long dominated by the categories and hierarchies inherited from Aristotle. The major contribution of pragmatism is surely the transformation of relations between theory and practice, which was strongly resented some representatives of European philosophy, which rated it ‘philosophy for engineers’. The reason for this denial is too central position granted to engineering design, at the expense of a more conventional design epistemic. Pragmatism opened the way for a kind of techno-centrism based on the general criterion of utility, which seemed to contradict an aesthetic ideal of beauty and freedom dear to some European philosophers. In fact, pragmatism shows a different but common commitment to experimentalism and instrumentalism, but Dewey is the only one to have developed a genuine philosophy of technology.

The real purpose of education is to build an environment with people enthusiastic to learn more every day because they not only feel they are obligated to but because they are interested. The purpose of education is to introduce new information to students while encouraging them to discover more on their own. The role of educators in this is to make students realize that education goes beyond knowledge from books. It is making students ready for life outside of school. It is preparing them to be versatile with different kinds of people. It is helping them make sound judgments. These, not only to be beneficial to themselves but for society as well. On a more personal note, I believe that the purpose of education is to support students find their purpose. Education’s purpose is not to let students compete to get the highest grades but rather, education’s purpose is to make students realize that they are different from each other and that they do not need to get the highest grades to prove their worth.

In over a century, everything had probably changed – transportation, communication, industrialization, etc. except for one thing – education. How can we prepare students for the future if we can’t even change modern education? I believe that the only thing schools do now is limit students’ supposition. The world has progressed and now we need people who think creatively, independently, innovatively, and critically. We need to nourish people who can do something new. We need to stop forcing students to think how we want them to because it hinders not only creativity but their own discovery. Most of all, we need to teach students to connect well with each other to produce something even bigger than we expect.

We should enable students to live a full life and to realize their potential as unique individuals by creating an environment in which they know they can be heard. Teachers should evaluate how they educate students and think twice if they feel they are limiting students from showing their abilities. Our goal here is to boost students in using their talents and intelligence well to think, reflect, reason, deliberate, and create what they can, as much as they can. All the more, it is also important to uplift students’ confidence, competence, and resilience to live in a rapidly changing, technologically advanced, and globalized world. Teachers should be motivators, not mandators for students to have positive self-esteem and positive attitudes about themselves.

The philosophical foundation: pragmatism and the theories of education: progressivism, post-modernism, and social reconstructionism influenced greatly on my framework. Pragmatism is change. In this sense, no truth is permanent. It is always changing from time to time, from place to place. Pragmatism is based on the psychology of individual differences. In Pragmatism, students are taught to their capacity. They are respected despite their differences and their individualities are appreciated. One’s education should be traced from their abilities, but individual development must take place in a social context. Every individual has a social self and individuality can best be developed in and through society. This is what I believe education should be about. I think students have been stereotyped that if they do not follow the rules or get low grades, they will end up as disastrous individuals someday; but I completely detest to that. We are unique individuals and the I think one thing that leads these students to delinquency is they feel they do not have the right to be heard or that they couldn’t do anything right. But could you imagine a world where everyone is valued? I think if we practice Pragmatism more and more to education today, we can encourage students to chase knowledge and enrich their abilities. Education as they said is the preparation for life. So why do we determine what students must learn? In my opinion, they should be determining their goals according to their needs and interests own their own and not being dictated to them. Therefore, we should not expect the same output from students in a class who incline in Math and Science with students who incline in Music and Arts as that would be a great disregard to Pragmatism. More to that, I believe that students should grow with change as there is no certain reality as change is the only constant thing in this world. Students should evolve along these changes. As I said earlier, it seems to me that schools nowadays are not preparing the students for the future but the past. Yes, we could learn from history, but we cannot be stuck in history forever. A lot has changed and so should we, even how we acquire information that’s why Pragmatism should be implemented in schools around the world. Progressivism on the other hand, says that students learn through their own experiences. Progressivism revolves around the student’s needs, including teaching students to be good citizens as well as good learners, a concept known as focusing on the whole child. Progressivism, in my opinion, is one way for us to solve the differences we have right now which is miscommunication between generations. How? I believe that older generations still cannot accept the fact that there has already been a great change since their time and that education has remained the same because of this. If we push through with Progressivism, we will hear what children has to say, compromise between generations and learn more from each other. With all of these foundations and theories, I believe that we can solve the problems we face today and encourage more enthusiastic learners of tomorrow.

What works best

It is without a doubt that the world is a work in progress. As our society changes, the needs and outlook in life of the people also evolve. Nothing is permanent, so they say. This inevitable change then gives way to a continuous reconstruction of existing realities in order for us to cope with our unending demands. Here, comes the substantial role of pragmatism as a philosophical basis of rejecting or embracing ideologies solely for the betterment of humanity. Pragmatism was developed in the 19th century through renowned philosophers Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and John Dewey. Being one of the theoretical foundations of research, it believes that there are various ways of giving meaning to the world. It gives emphasis on the plurality of reality and argues that a single point of view can never truly depict the entirety of a tableau. Furthermore, it gives importance on the role of experimentation as a springboard for active learning. Unlike other philosophies, pragmatism regards words and thoughts as keys for action and problem-solving rather than being decorations in our minds t

heoretical concepts which hold no practical values at all. In comparison to the viewpoints of Positivism which upholds that every rationally justifiable assertion can only be scientifically verified through sensory experience and logic and Interpretivism which emphasizes the need to study human action through interpretive means in order to understand the underlying meaning of what individuals attach to their behavior, Pragmatism serves as a middle ground between these two clashing beliefs and adheres to the use of mixed-method research in deciphering the answer to a certain problem under investigation. It also employs the research question as a determinant whether what course of action or what type of approach needs to be done in order to find the truth behind the unknown. Moreover, Pragmatism supports the so-called utilitarian principle which focuses on the greater good of everyone. It judges a proposition as ‘good’ if it has satisfactorily achieved what it is set out to do regardless of the type of method used, either quantitative or qualitative measures. In its quest to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, Pragmatism retains the Positivists’ notion of objective truth and use of scientific method while accepting the fact that we are all part of the world we are observing and that we cannot entirely disengage ourselves from what we are searching.

Unlike Idealism, Pragmatism does not believe in fixed and standard values in the world. It believes that the utility of these things is subject to change depending on the circumstance and tune of time. There is no final truth because knowledge continuously undergoes reconstruction and reassessment. The reality, as far as Pragmatism is concerned, is not ready-made but rather in the making which can be redesigned to suit the needs of man in the long run. Indeed, the impact of Pragmatism as a theoretical foundation of research is highly regarded up until the present day. This particular school of thought paved the way for a vast array of opportunities to acquire knowledge and ideologies. Through this, we do not cage ourselves inside the limitations that the contending issues of truth and reality dictate to us instead, we bypass this and continuously strive to achieve what truly works best.

Ethics

The word “ethics” is taken from the ancient Greek word known as ēthikós (ἠθικός), which means relating to one’s character. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that includes systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of wrong and right. Ethics, aesthetics, and matters of value comprise the branch of philosophy known as axiology.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism is derived from the Greek word “pragma” which means action/affair.

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that first appeared in the United States during the time period of the 1870s. The originators of this tradition are several and the major ones are Charles Sander Peirce, William James, and John Dewey.

Pragmatism is based on the principles of usefulness, workability, and practicality of ideas. Pragmatism relates ideas to their practical implementation in daily life that how can they be useful to the mundane being and how they can implement these practical ideas to make their lives a better place. It stresses the priority of action over doctrine, of experiencing principles rather than making them stay said principles.

Getting things done, and achieving desired results in personal life just as in business life achieving company goals is said to be pragmatic. The antonym of Pragmatism is Procrastination which means the action of delaying or postponing something.

Axiology

Axiology is taken from the Greek known as “Axia” (ἀξία), which means value and worth is the philosophical study of value. Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values, ethics, and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of right and wrong in individual and social conduct and Aesthetics studies beauty and harmony.

Pragmatism in Axiology

The concept of pragmatic ethics is an idea that attains a positive value after becoming a successful way to an end. There is no guarantee that something is good or bad. In pragmatic aesthetics, an appearance achieves its value from a group. One judges in light of the wisdom of a group rather than an individual in a group.

Richard McKay Rorty

Richard McKay Rorty was an American Philosopher born on 4th October. 1931. He studied at the University of Chicago and Yale University. Rorty, after a time, rejected the tradition of philosophy according to which knowledge involves a correct representation (mirror) of a world whose existence remains completely dependent on its representation. His most successful books are Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Consequences of Pragmatism (1982), and Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (1989).

There is Nothing Deep down Inside of us, except What We Put Ourselves There According to Rorty, our soul is curious. We describe what a soul is or how it should be but there is no proof that we have a soul. Even then we have held a belief that there is something inside us that tells us to do good or evil. Retry says, that there is nothing inside us, it’s just our imagination that we have something inside us that we call a soul.

Knowledge as a mirror

Firstly we assume that the experience that has been given to us by our elders is the raw data of the world. Secondly, we suppose that, once this raw data has been stored in our minds, our reasoning (or some other part of our brains) starts to put the pieces together to make sense of that

Rorty, who follows the philosopher Wilfred Sellars, claims that experience, as given, cannot be accessed like the raw data. We have to perceive on our own through language.

The same language that has been used to divide up the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity

Rorty suggests that knowledge is not something that can be mirrored through someone else (matter of conversation and social practice). When we decide what counts as knowledge, our judgment rests not on how strongly a fact correlates to the world; it is what society would let us say. And what we don’t count as knowledge, we discard it because we have not been familiarized with other societies (language).

Reasons for Judgment

Rorty was aware that there are some disturbing implications here, especially in the question of ethics. Imagine you have kidnapped your neighbor’s pet and you’re torturing it just for the sake of fun which is a moral blameworthiness act. We all will claim that this is wrong to do such a thing (hurt someone). When asked upon you start giving reasons for why you did it.

According to Plato, Socrates, in search of concepts of “goodness” and “justice” used to question convicts about why they did it, and usually the convicts were people who were unclear, who didn’t know what this was really about. In modern-day interrogation, people tend to justify their acts easily but in their hearts, they know that it is wrong.

My Heart of Hearts

We see right and wrong among our lives frequently. But it is not immediately clear to us whether this is right and this is wrong. By acknowledging “I know, in my heart of hearts, that it is wrong”, we know that there is something out there in this world that is called wrong. As some philosophers state “essence of wrong”. This corresponds because it is the basics of things. By stating “we just know”, we imply that “hearts of hearts” is a thing that has a particular grasp of truth.

We seem to be speaking “hearts of hearts” and “wrongness” as if we know what we are talking about. According to biology, the heart is just an organ that pumps blood into bodies but we use the word “heart” to show feelings, emotions, and sometimes even knowledge. But it is not the heart’s function to store the knowledge or information that we grasp. This is the idea of mirroring the world.

A World without Absolutes

We have to give up on the idea of fundamental moral truths. There can be no absolute wrong or absolute right if society tells us what to say. We do not have a deeper connection with ourselves just what society has mirrored in us. We are temporary being in this world and one day our moral values will not mean much to anyone. In the early 1800’s the idea that a horse cart is the fastest way to travel was absolute, but later in the century, the first-ever car was invented. Society evolves as time passes, just as fashion, taste, likes, and dislikes. We accept the moral values of the society which have been handed down to us from generations because we want to be able to fit in the society and our loved ones.

Defining education

According to (Victor Ordonez November 2000)Education is a social responsibility for the transmission of knowledge, skills, and culture with a formally organized structure. The development of human talents and personal characters for better citizenship.

(b)Philosophy

Philosophy is a well-coordinated and systemized attempt at evaluating life and the universe as a whole, concerning first principles that underlie all things as their causes and are implicit in all experience (Swimi Krishnananda)

(c) Education Philosophy

Is a branch of philosophy that addresses philosophic questions concerning nature, aim, and problems of Education. as a practical branch of philosophy, its practitioners look both inwards to the parent discipline of philosophy and outward to educational practices, as well as to developmental psychology, cognitive science more generally, sociology and other relevant disciplines.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism definition

`It is a temper of mind, an attitude, it is also a theory of the nature of ideas and truth; and finally, it is a theory of reality. It’s an educational philosophy that says education should be about life and growth. That Is teachers should be teaching students things that are practical for life and encourage them to grow into better people. Pragmatism believes people should deal with problems more practically than theoretically (William James 18 October 2018). The term Pragmatism is derived from the Greek word” pragma” meaning activity or work done. Others believe it’s derived from “pragmatikos” meaning practicability or experimentation (William James). The pragmatists in a former school pay attention to idealism, emotionalism, rationalism, and optimism. It emphasizes creativity if people ( pdf ).

Aim of education according to pragmatism

Pragmatism aims to:

1. Development of an adaptive and creative mind.
2. Development of an ability to restructure experiences.
3. According to John Dewey, the aim are merely suggestive, and most important thing is to restructure their experiences in a different situation. It indirectly means that education must inculcate a reflective attitude in learners.
4. Education must also enable learners to adjust to real-life situations. Creating sensitivity to social issues.
5. Realization of democratic values. A classroom should work on democratic principles so that, the child learns and value democratic values.
6. To develop vocational skills, good habits, flexibility, morality, and art of leisure.

Nature of learning

Learning by doing

According to Dewey students/pupils need to learn by doing, and then reflect upon what they did. Through inquiry, inductive reasoning, and active learning, the student will become a capable and confident adult. He believes schools treated children as dump and passive learners, instead, he proposed students be thought to be problem solvers. They shouldn’t be given a’ set of notes’ but be thought to problem solve and develop their knowledge that is relevant to the way they live right now not only in the future state.

The principle of the philosophy of pragmatism method of teaching is practical utility. The child is the control centre. This method proposes that the learner should learn through personal experiences. Education is not so much teaching the child what he ought to know, as encouraging him to learn for himself through creative activity ( Brank 1910). By so doing the learner will develop creativity and be able to cooperate. Teachers are required to suggest and prompt only. The teacher suggests problems then leave the learners to solve the problem themselves. To facilitate this discovery the application of the inductive and heuristic methods of teaching is necessary. (Devi, article page 1554).

Role of a teacher

Dewey senses the sensitivity of education towards learners’ needs and their independent differences. Teachers should realize there is no one-for-all concept of teaching and learning. Teachers should plan according to aptitude, learners’ former experience, and their present experiences. The teacher should observe the interests, observe the direction they want to take then help them develop the method to solve the problem.

‘The purpose of the teacher is to increase freedom of the children to enable them to explore their environments’ he believes in an interdisciplinary curriculum, or a curriculum that focuses on connecting multiple subjects, where students are allowed to freely move in and out the classroom, as they pursue their interest and construct their path for acquiring and applying knowledge. It is therefore the responsibility of a teacher to plan positive and construct environments for the students to create positive educative experiences for them.

Role of a learner

• `The student’s ability of information literacy is not measured by the student’s intelligence but by their ability to manage how to learn efficiently.
• Students should allow themselves to explore life so that they can have something to refer to when given class challenges.
• They should be open-minded and be able to link the real situation to problem-solving.

Naturalism

Naturalism definition

Naturalism is a philosophy with a belief that nature alone represents the entire reality. it is concerned with the ‘natural self ‘it contends that the ultimate reality is a matter, and not mind and spirit. It does not believe in spiritualism. It denies the existence of a spiritual universe-the universe of ideas and values. It emphasizes that instincts are responsible for all our activities – biological, psychological or social. Values of life are created by human needs. Man creates them when he reacts to or interaction with his environment (Nanelyn Bontoyan).

Aim of education according to naturalism

• `Self-expression

Naturalism lays stress on self-expression and self-preservation. Education should acquaint a person to earn living and train of health to preserve and maintain life.

• `Redirections and sublimation of instincts

His instincts are the guiding force and basis for all human conduct. The aim of education should be the re-direction and sublimation of these instincts towards socially useful work .fulfilments of individual and social needs through nature.

• `Struggle of existence

It should help children to adjust themselves, physically and mentally to their environment and the changing circumstances of life.

• `Perfect development of individuality;

It aims at developing the child into a joyous rational, balanced useful, and mature person.

• `In the opinion of Rousseau, education is aimed at the inner faculties, capacities, and power of the child. Not preparations for life, but participation in it (shahid, 2000).

Nature of learning

Learning should be done by doing, play way, method, observation, experimentation, govern self. According to Rousseau, ’students should not be given any verbal lesson rather they should be thought experiences alone. The teacher tries to give lots of hands-on training and practical experiences. Education should proceed from simple to complex concentrate to abstract.

Role of the teacher

The teacher is always behind the screen. He is a spectator or an observer. He plays his role behind the scene and does not interfere in students’ activities. The teacher acts as a facilitator, a setter of the stage, and as a supplier of material and opportunities. The teacher does not interfere with nature but rather cooperates with the ebb and flaws of nature. Rousseau opines that teachers should not be in a hurry to make a child learn, instead be patient, permissive and non-intrusive.

Role of the learner,

• Role of learners is the central point of the education process. They should be able to find out which way of learning works best for them.
• They are required to foster creative talents.
• To establish the autonomous organization, rules, and regulations to govern social life.
• To lead the teaching and learning process.

References;

1. Bantock. G.H. ( 1963) Education in an industrial society. London. Faber.
2. Berding. J.W.A (1992). The curriculum theory of john Dewey; pragmatism in Education.
3. Darling. J (1994). Child-centered education and its critics.
4. Dewey. J (1916 ). Democracy and Education. Teddington; echo library.
5. (1915) Schools for tomorrow. New York; Prometheus Books.
6. Eyler. J.,& Giles Jr, D. E (1999) where the learning in service-learning? Jossey-bass Higher and Adult education series.
7. Gartforth, F. W. (1966). John Dewey selected education.
8. Woods, R.G & Barrow, R. (2006). An introduction to the philosophy of education, London: Methuen.
9. D Papineau 2007.
10. Danna Campbell December 2010
11. Foot, Philippa (2003). Natural goodness, oxford university press
12. Rorty, Richard (1979). Philosophy and mirror of nature, Princeton University Press