Hilary Putnam (1926-2016), a highly influential philosopher of mind, language, and science, identified with neopragmatism later in his career. Putnam emphasized several key classical pragmatist themes he found compelling: the rejection of radical skepticism (arguing that doubt requires justification just as much as belief), fallibilism (the view that no belief is immune to revision), an anti-dualism concerning facts and values, and the idea that practice is primary in philosophy. His concept of “internal realism” (later “pragmatic realism”) attempted to navigate a middle path between metaphysical realism (the view that there is one true description of the world independent of our conceptual schemes) and relativistic idealism, arguing that while reality exists independently of us, our descriptions of it are always mediated by our conceptual frameworks and practical interests.

Susan Haack (1945-), another significant contemporary philosopher influenced by Peirce, offers a version of neopragmatism that stands in critical contrast to Rorty’s. Haack defends a more robust conception of objective inquiry and truth, arguing against what she sees as the relativistic tendencies in Rorty’s work. She developed “foundherentism,” a theory of epistemic justification that attempts to synthesize the strengths of foundationalism and coherentism, allowing for experiential input while emphasizing the interconnectedness of beliefs. Haack champions a “critical common-sensism” inspired by Peirce, which upholds objective standards of evidence and inquiry while acknowledging their flexibility and the human, fallible nature of science.

Cornel West (1953-), a prominent public intellectual and philosopher, was a student of Rorty and applies neopragmatist insights to pressing social, political, and racial issues. His work, including

Race Matters and Democracy Matters, emphasizes prophetic pragmatism, which combines the pragmatist focus on practical consequences and social reform with a deep concern for justice, democratic values, dialogue, solidarity, and community engagement in addressing systemic inequalities.

Other philosophers often associated with neopragmatism or influenced by it include Nicholas Rescher, who advocates for methodological pragmatism; Jürgen Habermas, whose theory of communicative action shares affinities with Peircean ideas of community and inquiry; Robert Brandom, known for his inferentialist semantics; and Donald Davidson, whose work on language and interpretation, though he did not explicitly label himself a neopragmatist, significantly influenced Rorty and shares common themes.

The very diversity among these thinkers illustrates that neopragmatism is less a unified doctrine and more a dynamic and contested field. While sharing common ground in their anti-foundationalism and appreciation for classical pragmatist themes, they diverge considerably on crucial issues such as the nature of truth, the viability of realism, the limits of relativism, and the proper role and methods of philosophy. For instance, Rorty’s embrace of a “post-philosophical” conversational approach and his deflationary view of truth contrast sharply with Haack’s defense of objective inquiry and her more traditional epistemological project. Putnam, while critical of metaphysical realism, sought to preserve a notion of objectivity that Rorty seemed more willing to abandon. West, in turn, channels pragmatic thought towards direct social and political critique and activism. These internal debates and varying interpretations ensure that neopragmatism remains a vibrant and evolving area of philosophical inquiry, rather than a settled orthodoxy. The label “neopragmatism” itself may sometimes obscure the profound philosophical disagreements among those it encompasses.

C. Core Concepts in Neopragmatism: Anti-Foundationalism, Social Constructivism, and the Role of Language

Several core concepts characterize the diverse landscape of neopragmatist thought, reflecting both its lineage from classical pragmatism and its engagement with 20th-century philosophical developments.

Anti-Foundationalism: A central tenet of neopragmatism is the rejection of foundationalism—the philosophical quest for indubitable, ultimate certainties or self-evident principles that could serve as a secure and unshakeable base for all knowledge claims. Neopragmatists argue that no such absolute foundations exist, or if they do, they are inaccessible. Instead, knowledge is viewed as provisional, fallible, and always subject to revision in light of new experiences, evidence, or shifting practical needs. This anti-foundationalist stance encourages intellectual humility and openness to a plurality of perspectives.

Social Constructivism: Many neopragmatists, influenced by postmodern thought and the linguistic turn, embrace some form of social constructivism. This view posits that meanings, truths, and even what counts as “reality” are not simply discovered as pre-existing, immutable entities, but are actively constructed through social interactions, linguistic practices, and shared cultural frameworks. Every assertion and understanding is seen as situated within a context of intersubjective agreement and communal practice, highlighting the social dimension of knowledge production. This perspective encourages critical awareness of how power dynamics, cultural narratives, and historical contingencies shape our beliefs and conceptual schemes.

The Role of Language: Language plays a crucial role in neopragmatist thought, often viewed not as a transparent medium for representing an independent reality (the “mirror of nature” critiqued by Rorty), but as a complex set of tools that humans use to cope with the world, communicate with each other, coordinate social action, and achieve practical goals. The emphasis shifts from the truth of individual propositions as corresponding to facts, to the utility and function of entire “vocabularies” or “language games” within specific forms of life. Dialogue, conversation, and the ability to redescribe experiences in new ways become important philosophical activities.

Pragmatic Truth and Contextualism: Consistent with classical pragmatism, neopragmatists generally view truth in pragmatic terms—that is, in relation to its utility, effectiveness in problem-solving, or its role in successful practical engagement, rather than as an absolute correspondence to an objective, mind-independent reality. Understanding is always contextual; the meaning and validity of statements and beliefs are deeply intertwined with the specific circumstances, histories, purposes, and perspectives that inform them.

Fallibilism and Rejection of Skepticism: Neopragmatists inherit the classical pragmatist commitment to fallibilism, acknowledging that any belief may need revision. However, this does not typically lead to radical skepticism. Following Peirce, many argue that doubt itself requires justification, just as belief does; one cannot simply doubt everything wholesale without specific reasons.

Anti-Dualism: There is often a rejection of sharp, traditional philosophical dualisms, such as those between fact and value, mind and body, or subject and object. These distinctions are seen as less fundamental or more fluid than traditionally conceived, often arising from specific linguistic or practical contexts rather than reflecting deep metaphysical divides.

Classical pragmatists already emphasized the fallibility of knowledge and the importance of experience in shaping our understanding. Neopragmatism, particularly in the vein of thinkers like Rorty, pushes this emphasis on contingency further. Influenced by the linguistic turn and philosophers like Thomas Kuhn (on paradigm shifts) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (on language games) , neopragmatists extend this contingency not just to individual beliefs, but to the very conceptual frameworks, vocabularies, and criteria for justification that we employ. Rorty, for example, argued that there is no privileged standpoint outside our current language and social practices from which to assess their “truth” or “correspondence” to an ultimate reality. This leads to the view that “truth” is often what is considered justified within a particular linguistic community or “conversation,” and these communities and their criteria are themselves contingent historical and social products. This radicalization of contingency moves beyond the fallibility of specific beliefs to encompass the entire apparatus of inquiry and justification. While this opens neopragmatism to charges of relativism, it also provides powerful tools for social critique, encouraging the questioning of dominant narratives and the imaginative exploration of alternative ways of living and understanding.

Application of Pragmatism in Shaping Thought and Practice

Pragmatism’s emphasis on practical consequences, experimental inquiry, and the role of ideas as instruments for action has led to its significant application in a wide array of fields beyond pure philosophy. Its principles have profoundly shaped approaches to education, law, political theory, and social reform.

A. Education: Dewey’s Revolution and Experiential Learning

John Dewey stands as the preeminent figure in the application of pragmatist philosophy to education, and his ideas sparked a revolution in pedagogical theory and practice. Central to Dewey’s educational philosophy was the concept of

experiential learning, often summarized by the phrase “learning by doing”. He argued that students learn best not by passively receiving and memorizing information dispensed by a teacher, but by actively engaging with their environment, grappling with real problems, and reflecting on the consequences of their actions.

Dewey’s instrumentalism was foundational to his educational views: ideas and concepts are treated as tools or instruments for solving problems that arise in experience. Education, therefore, should aim to cultivate thoughtful, critically reflective, and socially engaged individuals who are adept at using these intellectual tools. He envisioned the

classroom as a “mini-society” or a laboratory, a dynamic environment that reflects the complexities of real-world circumstances and provides opportunities for students to collaborate, experiment, and develop problem-solving skills. This approach was intended to foster not only intellectual development but also the habits of mind and social skills necessary for effective participation in a democratic society. For Dewey, education was synonymous with

“growth”—the continuous reconstruction and enrichment of experience, enabling individuals to better understand and interact with their world.

The roles of the teacher and student are reconceived in Dewey’s model. The teacher is not an authoritarian dispenser of facts but a guide and facilitator who helps students navigate their inquiries, structuring learning experiences that connect traditional subject matter to the students’ genuine interests and existing knowledge. Learning is understood to begin with the student’s own experiences and often an emotional response to a “problematic situation,” which then spurs intellectual inquiry, active experimentation, and reflective consideration of outcomes. Shared activities and social interaction are crucial, as they allow students to encounter diverse perspectives and collaboratively construct meaning.

Dewey’s educational pragmatism offers more than a set of techniques for classroom instruction; it provides a philosophical basis for lifelong, adaptive learning. By defining education as “growth” and the “continuous reconstruction of experience” , Dewey highlighted a process that extends far beyond formal schooling. The core skills he advocated—active engagement with problems, systematic inquiry, critical reflection on consequences, and collaboration —are precisely those required for individuals and societies to adapt to new challenges, integrate new information, and navigate an ever-changing world. In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and profound social shifts , the capacity to learn from experience, critically assess novel situations, and flexibly adapt one’s understanding becomes paramount. Thus, Dewey’s educational philosophy is not merely a pedagogy for the young but a comprehensive model for how human beings can continuously learn, evolve, and intelligently manage their collective life.

B. Law: Legal Realism and the Pragmatic Adjudication

Pragmatism has exerted a significant influence on legal theory and practice, primarily through its connection with the legal realist movement and the development of legal pragmatism. This approach views law not as an abstract system of timeless rules, but in terms of its practical applications, its real-world effects, and its success in achieving social goals. Legal realists, who emerged in the early 20th century and are seen as historical precursors to contemporary legal pragmatism, challenged the dominant legal formalism of their time. Formalism depicted law as a self-contained, logical system where judges mechanically apply pre-existing rules to facts to arrive at determinate outcomes. Realists, by contrast, argued that law in action is often far “sloppier,” more political, and less purely rational than formalist models admit. They emphasized that judicial decisions are influenced by a range of factors beyond formal legal rules, including the judge’s background, biases, and perceptions of social needs, and they stressed the importance of understanding the actual social context and consequences of legal rules and decisions.

Contemporary legal pragmatism builds upon these realist foundations, offering a distinct approach to legal interpretation and adjudication characterized by several core tenets :

1. Contextualism: Legal controversies and decisions are always deeply embedded in specific, unique factual and social contexts. Abstracting legal rules from these contexts can distort their meaning and application.
2. Antifoundationalism: Legal pragmatists reject the notion that judicial decisions can or should be deduced from a set of overarching, immutable legal principles or foundations. Instead, they emphasize the creative, problem-solving aspect of judging and the need for continuous testing and revision of legal ideas.
3. Instrumentalism: Law and legal rules are viewed as instruments for achieving social ends. This implies a future-oriented perspective in adjudication, where judges consider the potential effects of their decisions on society and the capacity of legal institutions to implement those decisions effectively, rather than focusing solely on consistency with past precedents.
4. Perspectivalism: Legal pragmatists acknowledge that understanding and interpretation are always shaped by the perspective of the interpreter. This leads to a skepticism towards broad legal generalizations and an acceptance of diverse descriptive and methodological approaches to understanding legal phenomena.

The “new legal realism” further develops these themes by explicitly calling for greater empiricism in legal studies, advocating for stronger links with the social sciences to understand how law actually functions and affects society. This approach attends to the dynamic interplay of legal institutions, processes, norms, and practices in shaping social expectations and outcomes.

By emphasizing context, consequences, fallibility, and the limits of abstract rules, legal pragmatism inherently calls for a degree of judicial humility. It encourages judges to acknowledge the limitations of purely formal legal reasoning and the inevitable influence of their own perspectives and values. Traditional legal formalism often presents an image of law as an objective, autonomous system of rules that judges merely discover and apply. Legal pragmatism and realism counter this by highlighting the indeterminacy inherent in legal language, the role of choice in judicial decision-making, and the critical importance of considering the real-world impact of those decisions. The pragmatic tenets of contextualism and perspectivalism  suggest that no judge can achieve a perfectly objective, value-neutral standpoint. This implies a need for self-awareness regarding the potential biases and limitations that shape legal interpretation. Furthermore, the instrumentalist focus on future effects , coupled with the new legal realism’s call for empirical grounding , urges the legal system to look beyond purely doctrinal analysis. It encourages the use of evidence from sociology, economics, psychology, and other social sciences to better understand the societal conditions that law addresses and the likely consequences of different legal rules and rulings. In essence, legal pragmatism advocates for a judiciary that is more self-reflective, more attuned to empirical realities, and more consciously engaged with the social purposes that law is meant to serve.

C. Political Philosophy: Problem-Solving, Experimentation, and Policy

In the realm of political philosophy and public policy, pragmatism offers a distinctive approach that prioritizes practical problem-solving, experimentalism, and demonstrable consequences over strict adherence to fixed ideologies or abstract doctrines. Pragmatic politics involves making decisions based on their anticipated outcomes, their feasibility, and their effectiveness in addressing concrete societal challenges, rather than deriving them deductively from a particular ideological system. This approach has significantly influenced how policymakers and political thinkers conceive of governance, leading to a greater emphasis on flexibility, adaptation, and evidence-based policy-making.

Key features of pragmatism in political philosophy include:

• A Shift from Ideology to Problem-Solving: Pragmatism encourages a move away from entrenched ideological debates towards a more focused effort on identifying specific problems and developing workable solutions.
• Experimentation and Adaptation: Pragmatic policymakers value the testing of different policy approaches, much like scientific experiments. They are willing to learn from both successes and failures, and to adapt policies based on empirical feedback and changing circumstances.
• Focus on Consequences: The evaluation of political decisions and policies hinges primarily on their actual or likely consequences for the well-being of the community and the achievement of public goals, rather than on their conformity to a pre-established theoretical framework.
• Balancing Competing Needs and Goals: Pragmatic decision-making often requires navigating complex trade-offs, such as balancing short-term needs with long-term objectives, or reconciling the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests of various stakeholders.
• Collaboration and Coalition-Building: Recognizing that effective solutions often require broad support, pragmatic politics frequently involves collaboration across different groups and the building of coalitions to achieve common objectives.

The application of pragmatism to politics suggests a more dynamic and responsive form of governance. However, this approach is not without its complexities and potential pitfalls. While a pragmatic focus on experimental, evidence-based problem-solving can offer a promising alternative to the ideological polarization and gridlock that often characterize contemporary political discourse, it also faces the risk of being perceived as unprincipled opportunism if not carefully guided. A relentless pursuit of “what works” without a clear articulation of underlying values or long-term societal aspirations could lead to policies that are merely expedient in the short term but unjust, unsustainable, or detrimental to core democratic principles in the long run. The criticism that pragmatism can devolve into mere opportunism  underscores this inherent danger. For pragmatic politics to maintain legitimacy and effectiveness, it must therefore integrate its commitment to practical outcomes with a transparent adherence to fundamental ethical principles and a clear vision of the societal goals it seeks to achieve. The challenge lies in striking a sustainable balance between adaptive flexibility and principled action, ensuring that the pursuit of workable solutions remains anchored in a commitment to justice, fairness, and the common good.

D. Social Reform and Ethical Considerations

Pragmatism, from its classical origins, has been deeply intertwined with concerns for social reform and the ethical improvement of human life. Figures like John Dewey explicitly argued that pragmatist philosophy could and should be a tool for promoting democratic values, fostering social justice, and guiding intelligent societal transformation. Classical American pragmatists were not detached academic speculators; they were often actively engaged with the social sciences and keenly attuned to the societal changes of their time, seeking to develop philosophical tools that could help build a more inclusive, equitable, and humane world. Pragmatism offers a framework for critically understanding existing social, cultural, and political practices and institutions by examining their practical consequences for human experience.

While pragmatism is not a specific ethical theory in the way that utilitarianism or deontology are, its core tenets have profound ethical implications. Its emphasis on consequences naturally leads to an ethical orientation where the value of actions, rules, and institutions is judged by their impact on human well-being and their success in ameliorating problems. The pragmatist encouragement of active engagement with problems, coupled with its valuation of experience and experimentation as the basis for decision-making, fosters a proactive and responsible approach to ethical challenges. Some neopragmatist thinkers, such as Sami Pihlström, have gone further to argue that metaphysical inquiry, from a pragmatist perspective, must be inextricably linked with ethics, suggesting that our fundamental ways of categorizing reality are laden with our values and practical concerns.

The very fabric of pragmatist thought—its focus on practical consequences, its commitment to experimental inquiry, and its understanding of reality as malleable and responsive to human action—generates an inherent orientation towards meliorism. Meliorism is the belief that the world is neither inherently good nor inherently evil, but is capable of being improved through sustained human effort and intelligent action. This stands in contrast to both optimistic views that the world is already perfect or inevitably progressing, and pessimistic views that see human efforts as futile. Pragmatism views ideas as instruments for solving problems and adapting to the environment. It champions experimentation and learning from consequences as pathways to better outcomes. Key figures like Dewey explicitly connected their philosophical work to the project of social reform and the creation of a more just and democratic society. This implies a fundamental rejection of fatalism or passive acceptance of existing conditions. If ideas and actions have demonstrable practical consequences, and if knowledge is a tool for understanding, adapting, and even controlling aspects of our environment, then human beings possess the agency to actively shape their world for the better. Therefore, pragmatism is not merely a descriptive philosophy that analyzes how things are; it carries a strong normative impetus towards ongoing improvement and the amelioration of problematic situations. It is, at its core, a philosophy of hope and engaged action, committed to the idea that through intelligent inquiry and concerted effort, human experience can be made more meaningful, just, and satisfying.

Pragmatism Comparisons and Contrasts

Pragmatism did not emerge in a philosophical vacuum. It developed in conversation with, and often in reaction to, other major philosophical traditions. Understanding its relationship with empiricism, rationalism, logical positivism, and its unique stance on metaphysics is crucial for appreciating its distinctive contributions.

A. Pragmatism vs. Empiricism and Rationalism

The classical debate between empiricism and rationalism centers on the primary source and justification of human knowledge. Empiricism, broadly, asserts that sense experience is the ultimate origin of all our concepts and knowledge. Rationalism, conversely, claims that reason, independent of sense experience, is a significant source of fundamental concepts and knowledge, often emphasizing innate ideas or a priori truths.

Pragmatism offers a distinct path that, while sharing affinities with empiricism, seeks to transcend the traditional opposition between these two schools. Pragmatism is often described as a continuation of critical empiricism due to its strong emphasis on experience as the testing ground for ideas. However, the pragmatist conception of experience differs significantly from that of many classical empiricists. While traditional empiricists like David Hume often viewed experience as composed of discrete, passive sense data or “impressions” , pragmatists like William James and John Dewey conceived of experience as an active, holistic, and ongoing interaction between an organism and its environment. For James, experience was a “blooming, buzzing confusion” that thought actively organizes; for Dewey, it was a dynamic process of “doing and undergoing”. Pragmatists see experience not as “dead” (a collection of inert sense data) but as “alive”—personally involving, imbued with qualities, and characterized by a unity of knower and known. Furthermore, pragmatists tend to individuate concepts based on their role in guiding practical action, whereas traditional empiricists often trace concepts back to their origins in perceptual experience. Pragmatism insists on the intrinsic intelligibility of experience itself, rather than seeing experience as raw data that must be fitted into abstract conceptual schemes provided by reason.

In relation to rationalism, pragmatism diverges from its reliance on a priori principles, fixed truths, and purely intellectual assertion detached from empirical testing. While rationalism may hold that the truth of certain ideas can be grasped through reason alone, pragmatism insists that ideas, whatever their origin, must ultimately be validated by their practical consequences in the real world. However, pragmatism does not dismiss reason. Instead, it re-conceives the role of reason not as a source of transcendent truths, but as a crucial instrument for forming hypotheses, planning actions, drawing inferences from experience, and anticipating future consequences. Peirce’s pragmatic maxim itself is a principle of reason, a logical method for clarifying concepts by considering their conceivable experiential effects.

William James memorably framed pragmatism as a mediating philosophy between what he called the “tough-minded” empiricist (who values facts, materialism, and often tends towards pessimism and irreligion) and the “tender-minded” rationalist (who prefers a priori principles, idealism, optimism, and often holds religious beliefs). Pragmatism, in James’s view, sought to reconcile “scientific loyalty to facts” with “confidence in human values”. It achieves this not by simply choosing one side of the empiricist-rationalist divide over the other, but by re-evaluating the roles of both experience and reason within a broader framework of active, experimental, and consequence-oriented inquiry. Experience provides the data and the testing ground, while reason provides the tools for organizing that experience, formulating hypotheses, and guiding action towards desired outcomes. Ultimately, both are judged by their practical efficacy in helping humans navigate and improve their world.

B. Pragmatism vs. Logical Positivism

Logical positivism, a philosophical movement that flourished in the early to mid-20th century (particularly associated with the Vienna Circle), shared with pragmatism a critical stance towards traditional metaphysics and an emphasis on grounding knowledge in experience. However, there were significant divergences in their methodologies, scope, and underlying philosophical commitments.

Logical positivism is characterized by its rigorous application of logical and syntactical analysis to philosophical problems, with a strong orientation towards the mathematical and physical sciences. Pragmatism, in contrast, often drew its inspiration from biological and social categories, with its key figures having closer affinities with the life sciences and social sciences.

A central point of comparison and contrast lies in their respective theories of meaning and verification. Early logical positivists famously advocated the verification principle of meaning, which asserted that a non-analytic statement is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable, at least in principle. Initially, this often carried an individualistic connotation, suggesting verifiability in terms of “my” potential experience. Some have seen Peirce’s early formulation of the pragmatic maxim, with its focus on “sensible effects,” as a forerunner of this verificationist approach to meaning.

However, pragmatism’s approach to meaning, particularly as it developed, took a slightly different path. Grounded in the context of action and behavior, pragmatism tended to define meaning in terms of the expectations and habits of action that a symbol or concept elicits, rather than strictly in terms of its verifiability as such. Moreover, pragmatism, especially in the hands of Peirce and Dewey, strongly emphasized the

social nature of scientific meaning and knowledge. Truth and meaning were not private affairs but emerged from communal inquiry and shared practices. This contrasts with the more individualistic and formal-linguistic focus of early logical positivism.

While both pragmatism (particularly in its Peircean form) and logical positivism exhibited an anti-metaphysical impulse, aiming to clarify or eliminate propositions that lacked empirical grounding or practical significance , their paths diverged considerably. Logical positivism, with its emphasis on formal logic and a strict criterion of verifiability, sought to draw a sharp demarcation between science and non-science (including metaphysics, which it largely dismissed as meaningless). Pragmatism, while also critical of speculative metaphysics detached from experience, adopted a broader, more fallibilistic, and socially oriented view of inquiry. It was less concerned with a definitive criterion of meaning that would exclude vast domains of human discourse, and more focused on how ideas function within the continuous process of human adaptation and problem-solving. Pragmatism’s fallibilism and its embrace of ongoing inquiry across diverse fields contrasted with logical positivism’s initial quest for a more foundational and restrictive basis for meaningful discourse. Thus, despite some shared critical aims regarding traditional metaphysics, their underlying philosophical frameworks and the scope of what they considered fruitful or meaningful inquiry differed substantially.

C. Pragmatism and Metaphysics: A Re-articulation

Pragmatism’s relationship with metaphysics is complex and has evolved over time, ranging from critical dismissal of certain metaphysical enterprises to constructive re-articulations of metaphysical inquiry itself.

Classical pragmatists like Peirce and James did not entirely eschew metaphysics. Peirce, for instance, intended the pragmatic maxim as a tool to clarify the meaning of concepts, including metaphysical ones, and thereby to identify and “steer clear of metaphysical distractions”—those propositions that, having no conceivable practical bearings, would make no contribution to the ultimate, settled state of beliefs and could thus be considered meaningless. His own philosophical system, however, included significant metaphysical components, such as his theories of categories (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness) and his objective idealism. William James, similarly, saw the pragmatic method as a way of “settling metaphysical disputes that might otherwise be interminable” , suggesting a re-framing or resolution of such disputes by examining their practical import, rather than a wholesale rejection of all metaphysical questions.

Many later philosophers, particularly neopragmatists like Richard Rorty, are often interpreted as adopting a more strongly anti-metaphysical stance, viewing traditional metaphysical inquiry into the ultimate nature of reality as a fruitless and misguided enterprise, a relic of a “representationalist” view of knowledge that philosophy should abandon.

However, another strand of contemporary thought, also drawing on pragmatist resources, proposes a “pragmatist metaphysics”. This approach does not seek to be a “first philosophy” that uncovers the nature of a world independent of human perspectives and practices. Instead, it re-conceives metaphysics as an inquiry into the most fundamental and pervasive

categorizations of reality that are inherently laden with human practices, interests, and values. From this viewpoint, metaphysics does not study the world’s “own” intrinsic categorical structure, but rather a structure that human beings, through their conceptual and practical activities, impose upon or co-construct with the reality they experience and interact with.

This re-articulated pragmatist metaphysics often emphasizes its inextricable link with ethics. If our most basic ways of understanding and categorizing the world are shaped by our practices and purposes, then these metaphysical frameworks are not value-neutral but are imbued with ethical significance. Such an approach seeks to correct what it sees as misconceptions about the relationship between pragmatism and metaphysics, arguing that a coherent and metaphysically serious alternative to currently dominant forms of realist metaphysics can emerge from pragmatist principles.

Thus, pragmatism’s engagement with metaphysics has transformed from an initial use of the pragmatic maxim as a critical tool for dissolving or clarifying abstruse metaphysical claims, through a period of more pronounced anti-metaphysical sentiment in some neopragmatist quarters, to a contemporary effort by others to reconstruct metaphysical inquiry itself along practice-oriented, ethically-informed, and non-foundationalist lines. This reconstructed metaphysics focuses not on a transcendent reality “in itself,” but on the most general features of how humans experience, interact with, and make sense of their world.

Critiques and Challenges to Pragmatism

Despite its enduring influence and practical appeal, pragmatism has faced a number of significant criticisms and challenges throughout its history. These critiques often target its theory of truth, its perceived relativism, its instrumentalist approach, and specific aspects of the philosophies of its key proponents.

A. The Charge of Relativism and Subjectivism

One of the most persistent criticisms leveled against pragmatism, particularly against William James’s formulation, is that it leads to relativism and subjectivism. If truth is defined as “what works” or what is useful for an individual or a particular group in a specific context, critics argue that this implies truth can vary from person to person or from one situation to another. This seems to undermine the notion of objective truth—a truth that holds independently of individual beliefs or perspectives. The concern is that pragmatism might allow an idea to be “true” for one person (because it is useful to them) and “false” for another (because it is not useful to them), thereby reducing truth to a matter of subjective opinion or preference.

Pragmatists have offered various responses to this charge. They generally contend that their approach is not relativistic in the sense of “anything goes,” but rather contextualist, recognizing that meaning and truth are indeed dependent on specific contexts of inquiry and action. They maintain that beliefs are still subject to rigorous testing through experimentation and communal inquiry, and are not based on arbitrary whim or mere subjective desire. John Dewey, for example, considered the charge of relativism a “red herring,” arguing that it was not an inherent commitment of pragmatism. Some pragmatists argue for the possibility of a “non-relativist pluralism,” where multiple valid perspectives can exist without collapsing into a corrosive relativism. Even James, whose views are often seen as most susceptible to this critique, qualified his position by stating that beliefs must ultimately cohere with “the rest of experience” and respect “the order which realities follow in his experience,” suggesting that utility is not entirely unconstrained.

The accusation of relativism often arises from a misunderstanding of pragmatism’s contextualism and fallibilism. Critics may interpret the rejection of absolute, fixed truth  and the emphasis on context-dependent utility  as an endorsement of the idea that any belief is valid if it “works” for someone, regardless of broader evidence or consequences. However, pragmatists typically incorporate mechanisms of constraint and correction. Peirce’s emphasis on the role of the “community of inquirers” and the long-run convergence of belief introduces an intersubjective and self-correcting dimension that mitigates pure subjectivism. Dewey’s concept of “warranted assertibility” implies that beliefs must be justified through rigorous, shared processes of inquiry and evidence, not simply by individual preference or immediate utility. Thus, while pragmatism acknowledges a plurality of workable beliefs and the inherent fallibility of all human knowledge, it does not abandon criteria for evaluating those beliefs. The “test of practice,” empirical consequences, and communal scrutiny provide constraints that differentiate pragmatism from a simplistic relativism where all opinions are equally valid. The crucial point is that these evaluative criteria are seen as immanent to human practices of inquiry and problem-solving, rather than being derived from transcendent, absolute standards.

B. Instrumentalism and the Utility of Truth

Closely related to the charge of relativism is the critique of pragmatism’s instrumentalist view of truth, particularly the idea that truth is defined by its utility or “what works”. Critics contend that this reduces truth to mere expediency, practical benefit, or instrumental success, potentially ignoring or devaluing the pursuit of objective or universal truths that may not have immediate practical payoffs. William James’s assertion that “it is useful because it is true” and “it is true because it is useful” effectively “mean the same thing”  has been a particular point of contention, with many scholars denying this equivalence and arguing that it conflates the criteria for truth with the consequences of believing something to be true.

The concern is that if truth is solely a matter of utility, then any belief that happens to be useful, even if factually incorrect or morally questionable, could be deemed “true” in a pragmatic sense. This seems to allow for a dangerous flexibility where truth can be manipulated to serve particular interests, or where uncomfortable truths can be dismissed if they are not perceived as immediately useful.

Pragmatists often respond that this critique misunderstands the nature of “utility” or “working” as they conceive it. For pragmatists, especially in the more developed accounts, a belief “works” or is “useful” not merely in a narrow, selfish, or short-term instrumental sense, but in its capacity to successfully guide human action, allow for reliable predictions, solve complex problems, achieve sustainable long-term goals, and harmonize our overall experience of the world in a coherent way. A belief that is demonstrably false in its correspondence to empirical reality (e.g., a belief that a harmful substance is safe) would ultimately prove not to be “useful” in this broader, functional sense, because acting upon it would consistently lead to negative consequences and failed outcomes. James’s statement that “Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events”  suggests a dynamic process of validation through ongoing interaction with the world. In this process, an idea’s “working” is taken as evidence of its functional alignment with the way reality operates, at least for practical purposes. Thus, “utility” for the pragmatist is not intended as an arbitrary or purely subjective criterion but as an indicator of a belief’s capacity to effectively mediate our relationship with the world and to lead to flourishing. The philosophical challenge for pragmatism lies in clearly articulating the scope, criteria, and constraints of this “utility” to avoid its misinterpretation as mere expediency or the rationalization of desired beliefs.

C. Specific Criticisms of Key Pragmatists

Beyond general critiques of the pragmatic theory of truth, specific criticisms have been directed at the individual philosophies of its main proponents.

John Dewey’s philosophy has faced scrutiny on several fronts.

• Concept of Power and Social Conflict: Particularly from Leftist critics, Dewey has been accused of failing to develop a sufficiently robust concept of power in his social and political thought. These critics argue that his emphasis on cooperative inquiry and democratic deliberation, while laudable, was overly optimistic and naïve, neglecting the ways in which entrenched power structures, manipulation, deceit, and hegemonic control of perspectives can distort communication and undermine genuine democratic processes. He was seen as underestimating the pervasiveness of social conflict and the capacity of powerful interests to shape public consciousness in ways that legitimize their own dominance, effectively manufacturing a “false consciousness” that precludes authentic democracy. Critics contend that Dewey did not fully account for how power could be “oppressively productive”—molding worldviews and desires—rather than merely “oppressively suppressive” by blocking opportunities.
• Educational Philosophy: Dewey’s progressive educational theories also drew criticism. Some feared that his emphasis on experiential learning, student interests, and the classroom as a social environment would lead to a neglect of basic academic skills and knowledge. Others worried that it would result in a breakdown of classroom order and a diminishment of the teacher’s authority. Furthermore, his view of morals as “essentially social and pragmatic” and his resistance to subordinating education to “transcendent values or dogmas” led to concerns that his approach would foster a disregard for objective moral order, promoting a kind of ethical relativism based on social consensus or individual experience.

William James’s pragmatism has also been targeted for specific weaknesses.

• Subjectivity of Pragmatic Value: Critics argue that James’s focus on what “works” for the individual makes pragmatic value highly subjective. Since different people have different goals, needs, and temperaments, a belief that is pragmatically valuable for one person might not be for another. This could potentially lead to the justification of beliefs that are harmful or delusional, as long as they provide some subjective benefit or help an individual achieve their idiosyncratic goals (e.g., a worldview that justifies suicide or harmful behavior).
• Ethical Implications of “The Will to Believe”: James’s doctrine of “the will to believe”—the idea that one can be justified in holding a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence if that belief has positive practical consequences—has been criticized for potentially valuing ignorance or wishful thinking in certain ethical situations. For example, if one suspects wrongdoing but investigating it would lead to negative personal consequences, a pragmatist might seem justified in choosing not to investigate to protect their own interests, thereby prioritizing personal utility over the pursuit of truth or justice.

These specific criticisms often highlight a fundamental tension within pragmatism: the challenge of reconciling its optimistic ideals—such as the power of cooperative inquiry, the pursuit of individual flourishing through belief, and the efficacy of practical problem-solving—with the often intractable and messy complexities of real-world phenomena. Issues like deep-seated power imbalances, pervasive social inequalities, the human capacity for self-deception, and the potential for pragmatic principles to be misused for narrow or harmful ends, all pose significant challenges. The critiques push pragmatism to continually refine its understanding of social dynamics, ethical frameworks, and the contextual factors that influence the application and outcomes of its core tenets. They underscore the need for constant critical vigilance regarding questions of “works for whom?”, “works towards what ultimate ends?”, and “what are the broader, often unseen, consequences?” to ensure that pragmatism serves as a genuine tool for improvement rather than a rationalization for the status quo or detrimental forms of individualism.

D. Pragmatism as a Reflection of Cultural Ethos

Pragmatism has sometimes been characterized, often critically, as a philosophical rationalization of the American cultural ethos, particularly its business-oriented, utilitarian, and instrumentalist tendencies. Its emphasis on practicality, efficiency, experimentation, tangible results, and a “can-do” spirit can be seen as mirroring values often associated with American society, especially during the period of its emergence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—a time of rapid industrial expansion, technological innovation, and a pioneering mentality. William James himself described his philosophy as fitting for an “idealistic, optimistic, utilitarian nation” that is “practical and inventive, craving facts, weighing costs and benefits”.

This perception of pragmatism as quintessentially “American” has led some critics to view it as a philosophical expression of, or justification for, unbridled commercialism, individualism, or a focus on material success, potentially lacking deeper ethical or spiritual dimensions.

However, to see pragmatism solely as a product or reflection of a particular cultural ethos, such as the “American business ethos,” is to overlook its critical and transformative potential. While pragmatism undeniably drew from and resonated with certain aspects of its American context—its dynamism, its experimental spirit, and its focus on practical problem-solving—it also contains within it powerful tools for social critique and ethical reflection that can challenge and transcend a mere endorsement of dominant societal trends. Key pragmatists like John Dewey, for instance, were deeply concerned with social justice, democratic participation, education for critical citizenship, and the ethical improvement of society; his work often involved a robust critique of existing social and economic inequalities and the dehumanizing aspects of industrial capitalism. Peirce’s vision of a dedicated community of inquiry pursuing truth in the long run, guided by logic and self-correction, is not easily reducible to the pursuit of short-term commercial interests or individual gain. Even James, while emphasizing individual experience, was concerned with the full spectrum of human life, including religious and moral dimensions.

Therefore, pragmatism exhibits a dual role: it is, in part, a product of its cultural environment, but it also possesses the conceptual resources to critically engage with and seek to reform that environment. The philosophy embodies a tension between its practical, instrumental aspects, which can align with a results-oriented culture, and its melioristic, ethical, and democratic aspirations, which call for ongoing critique and reconstruction of social practices. Its legacy is thus more complex than a simple reflection of a national character; it is a philosophy that, at its best, uses its practical orientation to foster critical intelligence and promote human flourishing in a broad sense.

Contemporary Relevance and Concluding Reflections

Pragmatism, far from being a mere historical artifact, continues to exert considerable influence on contemporary philosophical discourse and finds application in a diverse range of interdisciplinary studies. Its core principles offer valuable frameworks for addressing modern complexities and guiding future inquiry.

A. The Enduring Influence of Pragmatism in Modern Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies

Pragmatism remains a significant and vital branch within contemporary philosophy, its tenets continuing to fuel debates concerning truth, knowledge, meaning, ethics, and the very nature of philosophical inquiry itself. The evolution of classical pragmatism into various forms of neopragmatism demonstrates its capacity for adaptation and renewal in response to new intellectual challenges, such as the linguistic turn and postmodern thought. Journals like

Contemporary Pragmatism are dedicated to exploring the application of pragmatist ideas, broadly understood, to a wide spectrum of today’s pressing issues. This includes not only traditional philosophical domains like epistemology, ethics, and social & political philosophy, but also fostering interdisciplinary connections with fields such as psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, education, and international relations. The sustained engagement with pragmatist themes across these varied disciplines underscores its perceived utility and relevance in current intellectual life.

The enduring influence of pragmatism can be attributed in large part to its inherent adaptability. Unlike philosophical systems built upon purportedly immutable, a priori truths, pragmatism is fundamentally a methodology oriented towards ongoing inquiry, experimentalism, and responsiveness to changing contexts and practical needs. As new scientific discoveries are made, novel social and technological challenges emerge, and pressing ethical dilemmas arise, pragmatism’s core emphasis on testing ideas by their observable outcomes in specific contexts provides a flexible and robust framework for addressing them. The development of neopragmatism is a clear testament to this adaptive capacity, showing how core pragmatist ideas have been reinterpreted and reinvigorated through engagement with later philosophical movements. Its successful application in diverse fields, from education and law to public policy and even informing discussions around artificial intelligence ethics , further demonstrates its versatility. In essence, pragmatism’s own conceptual “plasticity,” as noted by early pragmatists , is a key reason for its continued vitality; it is a philosophy designed to evolve in tandem with human experience and the ongoing project of inquiry.

B. Pragmatism’s Role in Addressing Contemporary Issues

The principles of pragmatism are increasingly being applied to understand and address a wide array of complex contemporary issues. Its utility is evident in areas such as public policy formulation, where an emphasis on experimental approaches and evidence-based decision-making is crucial ; in education reform, where Deweyan ideas of experiential and student-centered learning continue to inspire new pedagogical models ; and in scientific inquiry, particularly in fields dealing with complex systems where traditional linear models may be inadequate. Furthermore, pragmatism offers a flexible, context-dependent approach that is well-suited to social and organizational research, often employing mixed methods to capture the multifaceted nature of human behavior and social phenomena. Contemporary discussions on race and ethnicity, cultural relations, and identity politics also benefit from pragmatist perspectives that emphasize lived experience, social construction, and the pursuit of more just and equitable social arrangements. Neopragmatist frameworks, for instance, are employed to navigate issues of meaning-making in an increasingly complex world, to promote social progress, and to foster understanding across diverse perspectives.

In an era characterized by increasing complexity, rapid change, and profound pluralism of values and worldviews, pragmatism’s core tenets offer particularly valuable tools. Its foundational rejection of absolute, one-size-fits-all solutions  and its corresponding focus on context-specific problem-solving  make it well-suited for environments where simple answers are elusive. The pragmatist emphasis on experimentalism and adaptation  encourages iterative approaches to policy development and social innovation, allowing for learning from both successes and failures. Moreover, the Peircean ideal of a self-correcting community of inquiry and the Deweyan conception of democracy as a mode of shared experience and collaborative problem-solving  provide models for inclusive deliberation and decision-making in diverse societies. Neopragmatist themes, such as social constructivism and the importance of ongoing dialogue and redescription , further support the task of navigating differing perspectives and forging common ground around practical outcomes. Consequently, pragmatism provides not just an abstract philosophical stance but a practical methodology for addressing the multifaceted challenges of the 21st century, promoting resilience, adaptive governance, and the pursuit of workable solutions in a world of persistent uncertainty.

C. Final Thoughts on the Legacy and Future of Pragmatic Thought

Pragmatism’s enduring legacy is not that of a closed, completed philosophical system providing final answers, but rather that of an open-ended, evolving project of inquiry. It is a tradition fundamentally committed to the idea that human beings can, through intelligent reflection and concerted action, navigate the complexities of their world and progressively improve their condition. Its future trajectory will likely depend on its continued capacity for self-critique, its engagement with new and unforeseen challenges, and its ability to inspire practical and ethical responses to the problems of co

and its unwavering commitment to ongoing inquiry. As John Dewey consistently emphasized, philosophy itself

ntemporary life. The ongoing need to balance methodological rigor with practical relevance, to adapt to rapid technological and social changes, and to foster interdisciplinary collaboration will continue to shape pragmatic thought.

The essence of pragmatism lies in its anti-finality and its unwavering commitment to ongoing inquiry. As John Dewey consistently emphasized, philosophy itself must be subject to reconstruction. This means that pragmatism’s own core tenets—experimentalism, fallibilism, contextualism—must be applied to pragmatism itself. It must continually test its own assumptions and revise its approaches based on their practical consequences in both the intellectual and social spheres. The historical evolution from classical pragmatism to the diverse currents of neopragmatism is a testament to this inherent adaptive capacity. Contemporary and future challenges, ranging from the ethical implications of artificial intelligence and genetic engineering to global environmental crises, economic inequality, and the complexities of digital communication and misinformation, will undoubtedly require new pragmatic responses and potentially further developments within pragmatist philosophy. The future of pragmatism, therefore, rests on its ability to continue applying its core methodological commitments to itself and to the pressing problems of the times. Its enduring value will be measured by its success in fostering what Dewey called “intelligent habits of action” in a world that constantly presents novel and often perplexing “problematic situations.” As such, pragmatism is best understood not as a set of doctrines to be passively accepted, but as a living invitation to critical thought and engaged action.

Pragmatism, emerging from the unique intellectual landscape of late 19th-century America, has established itself as a resilient and profoundly influential philosophical tradition. Pioneered by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, it offered a revolutionary approach to philosophical inquiry by shifting the focus from abstract speculation and the pursuit of timeless truths to the practical consequences of ideas and the efficacy of action in human experience. The pragmatic maxim, central to this shift, proposed that the meaning of any concept is exhausted by its conceivable practical effects, thereby providing a method for clarifying thought and, in some cases, dissolving traditional metaphysical disputes.

The core tenets of pragmatism—its emphasis on practicality and effectiveness, its commitment to experimentation and ongoing inquiry, its contextual understanding of truth, and its consequentialist evaluation of ideas—have provided a robust framework for understanding knowledge not as a passive reflection of reality, but as an active, instrumental process of problem-solving and adaptation. This perspective has found fertile ground in numerous applied fields, most notably in education, where Dewey’s ideas on experiential learning transformed pedagogy; in law, where legal realism and pragmatic adjudication challenged formalist orthodoxies by focusing on social context and consequences; and in political philosophy, where pragmatism informs approaches to policy-making that prioritize experimentalism and practical outcomes over ideological rigidity.

The evolution of pragmatism into neopragmatism, through engagement with the linguistic turn and thinkers like Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, Susan Haack, and Cornel West, demonstrates its continued vitality and capacity for adaptation. While neopragmatists diverge on many specific issues, they generally carry forward the classical pragmatist commitments to fallibilism, anti-foundationalism, and the importance of practice, often re-articulating these themes through the lens of language, social construction, and discourse.

Despite facing persistent critiques—including charges of relativism, an overly instrumental view of truth, and, in the case of specific thinkers, alleged naiveté regarding power dynamics or potential for subjective misuse—pragmatism has consistently offered thoughtful responses. It maintains that its contextualism is not an endorsement of unbridled relativism but a recognition of the situated nature of inquiry, which remains constrained by experience, communal scrutiny, and the demand for practical efficacy.

In the contemporary world, characterized by complexity, pluralism, and rapid change, pragmatism’s emphasis on experimental problem-solving, adaptive learning, and collaborative inquiry remains highly relevant. It offers valuable intellectual tools for navigating disagreement, fostering innovative solutions, and building consensus around practical actions that aim for human betterment. The legacy of pragmatism is not a set of fixed doctrines but an enduring invitation to an ongoing, self-critical, and ethically engaged project: to continuously seek more intelligent and effective ways for human beings to understand, navigate, and improve their shared world. Its future will be shaped by its continued application to emerging challenges and its unwavering commitment to the power of reflective experience.

References

1. Pragmatism 101: A Beginner’s Guide – Number Analytics,, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/pragmatism-101
2. Pragmatism – Beliefs, Principles, Quotes & Leading Figures – Philosophy Buzz, , https://philosophybuzz.com/pragmatism/
3. www.numberanalytics.com, , https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/pragmatism-in-philosophy#:~:text=Pragmatism%2C%20a%20philosophical%20movement%20that,Sanders%20Peirce%20and%20William%20James.
4. en.wikipedia.org, , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#:~:text=Pragmatists%20contend%20that%20most%20philosophical,their%20practical%20uses%20and%20successes.
5. Pragmatism in Modern Thought – Number Analytics, , https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-pragmatism-contemporary-philosophy
6. en.wikipedia.org, , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#:~:text=Pragmatism%20began%20in%20the%20United,the%20objects%20of%20your%20conception.
7. Pragmatism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2021 Edition), , https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/fall2021/entries/pragmatism/
8. Charles Sanders Peirce: Pragmatism – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, , https://iep.utm.edu/peircepr/
9. Peirce, Charles Sanders | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, , https://iep.utm.edu/peirce-charles-sanders/
10. Can someone explain to me basic rules and ideas of pragmatism? : r/askphilosophy – Reddit, , https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/oo0ehb/can_someone_explain_to_me_basic_rules_and_ideas/
11. Pragmatism | Definition, History, & Examples | Britannica, , https://www.britannica.com/topic/pragmatism-philosophy
12. Understanding the Philosophical Positions of Classical and Neo …, , https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/16117/Johnson_2017_understanding.pdf?sequence=1
13. versus – rudyct.com, , https://rudyct.com/ab/Positivism.versus.Pragmatism.pdf
14. History of Pragmatism and Pragmatic Philosophy – Learn Religions, , https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-pragmatism-250583
15. Pragmatism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, , https://iep.utm.edu/pragmati/
16. Charles Sanders Peirce: Architectonic Philosophy, , https://iep.utm.edu/peircear/
17. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), , https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/
18. (PDF) The Different Theories of Truth Three Brothers (Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey) – ResearchGate, , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338279456_The_Different_Theories_of_Truth_Three_Brothers_Charles_Sanders_Peirce_William_James_and_John_Dewey
19. JAMES, PEIRCE, AND PRAGMATISM: – William James Studies, , https://williamjamesstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/V18N1-00-Introduction.pdf
20. www.neh.gov, , https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2018/winter/feature/the-thinker-who-believed-in-doing-0#:~:text=Throughout%20his%20life%2C%20James%20wrote,of%20psychology%20to%20the%20classroom.
21. The Thinker Who Believed in Doing | National Endowment for the Humanities, , https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2018/winter/feature/the-thinker-who-believed-in-doing-0
22. Pragmatism – Philosophical Inquiry, Empirical Evidence, Realism …, , https://www.britannica.com/topic/pragmatism-philosophy/Evaluation-of-pragmatism
23. Pragmatism and Truth: A Philosophical Exploration – Number Analytics, , https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/pragmatism-and-truth-exploration
24. Pragmatism: An Analysis of William James : r/philosophy – Reddit, , https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/6anqvx/pragmatism_an_analysis_of_william_james/
25. www.reddit.com, , https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/6anqvx/pragmatism_an_analysis_of_william_james/#:~:text=That%20said%2C%20the%20philosophy%20does,differ%20from%20person%20to%20person.
26. iep.utm.edu, , https://iep.utm.edu/john-dewey/#:~:text=John%20Dewey%20was%20a%20leading,human%20organism%20to%20its%20environment.
27. Dewey Applies Pragmatism to Education | EBSCO Research Starters, , https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/dewey-applies-pragmatism-education
28. John Dewey on Education: Impact & Theory – Simply Psychology, , https://www.simplypsychology.org/john-dewey.html
29. Dewey, John | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, , https://iep.utm.edu/john-dewey/
30. John Dewey: Portrait of a Progressive Thinker | National Endowment for the Humanities, , https://www.neh.gov/article/john-dewey-portrait-progressive-thinker
31. John Dewey in the 21st Century – ERIC, , https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1158258.pdf
32. Contemporary Philosophy – Pragmatism – Socratica , https://learn.socratica.com/en/topic/philosophy–contemporary-philosophy–pragmatism
33. Pragmatism and the Social Sciences – OpenEdition Journals,, https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/812
34. The Different Theories of Truth Three Brothers (Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey) | IDEAS – IAIN Palopo,, http://ejournal.iainpalopo.ac.id/index.php/ideas/article/view/1046
35. Pragmatism in Politics: A Guide – Number Analytics,, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-pragmatism-political-philosophy
36. Navigating Frameworks: Neopragmatism – Michael Bear,, https://www.michaelhr.com/navigating-complexity-neopragmatism/
37. Neopragmatism – Wikipedia,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism
38. Pragmatism vs Neopragmatism? : r/askphilosophy – Reddit,, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/738g28/pragmatism_vs_neopragmatism/
39. Richard Rorty and the Power of Imagination | Psychology Today,, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/philosophies-in-psychology/202501/richard-rorty-and-the-power-of-imagination
40. booksandideas.net,, https://booksandideas.net/Richard-Rorty-the-Multi-Pragmatist#:~:text=In%20his%20book%2C%20Rorty%20takes,the%20core%20of%20analytic%20philosophy.
41. 4. History and development of pragmatism – University of Nottingham,, https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/helmopen/rlos/research-evidence-based-practice/designing-research/types-of-study/understanding-pragmatic-research/section04.html
42. Legal Pragmatism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,, https://iep.utm.edu/leglprag/
43. Legal Realism and International Law – UCI School of Humanities,, https://www.humanities.uci.edu/sites/default/files/document/ShafferLegalRealismandIL2.pdf
44. en.wikipedia.org,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#:~:text=Pragmatism%20emphasizes%20the%20connection%20between,of%20pragmatism%20in%20their%20field.
45. Pragmatist Metaphysics: An Essay on the Ethical Grounds of …,, https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/pragmatist-metaphysics-9781847065933/
46. Sami Pihlström, Pragmatist Metaphysics: An Essay on the Ethical Grounds of Ontology,, https://philpapers.org/rec/PIHPM
47. Rationalism vs. Empiricism – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,, https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2015/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
48. What are the differences between the empirist (Locke, Hume, etc.) and pragmatist (Peirce, James, Dewey) conceptions of experience? : r/askphilosophy – Reddit,, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/60myad/what_are_the_differences_between_the_empirist/
49. How is pragmatism different from utilitarianism/empiricism … – Reddit,, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2vdywu/how_is_pragmatism_different_from/
50. Peirce and Wright – PhilArchive,, https://philarchive.org/archive/GRIPEA-2
51. Pragmatism’ and Rationalism’ Concepts of Truth – 290 Words | Essay Example – IvyPanda,, https://ivypanda.com/essays/pragmatism-and-rationalism-concepts-of-truth/
52. www.pdcnet.org,, https://www.pdcnet.org/scholarpdf/show?id=wcp8_1936_0130_0138&pdfname=wcp8_1936_0130_0138.pdf&file_type=pdf#:~:text=Pragmatism%20distinguishes%20itself%20from%20English,syntactical%20or%20grammatical)%20ana%20lysis.
53. THE CONCEPT OF MEANING IN PRAGMATISM AND LOGICAL …,, https://www.pdcnet.org/scholarpdf/show?id=wcp8_1936_0130_0138&pdfname=wcp8_1936_0130_0138.pdf&file_type=pdf
54. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth: A Practical Perspective – Philosophy Institute,, https://philosophy.institute/epistemology/pragmatic-theory-truth-practical-perspective/
55. Relativism, Pragmatism, and John Dewey,, https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/pdf2image?pdfname=acpq_2013_0087_0002_0321_0345.pdf&file_type=pdf
56. Jaime Nubiola: “Pragmatism and Relativism: A Defense of Pluralism”,, https://www.unav.es/users/Articulo53c.html
57. Democracy and Power: A Reply to John Dewey’s … – Purdue e-Pubs,, https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1488&context=eandc
58. The Tragedy of American Education: The Role of John Dewey – The …,, https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2018/02/01/the-tragedy-of-american-education-the-role-of-john-dewey/
59. Contemporary Pragmatism | Brill,, https://brill.com/view/journals/copr/copr-overview.xml