Pragmatic is the branch of philosophy that studies the context-dependent nature of linguistic meaning. It encompasses the theory of how one and the same utterance may express different meanings or propositions in various contexts due to ambiguity, indexicality, and so forth. It also includes the study of a conversation’s structure and its consequences for understanding. The goal of pragmatism is to free philosophy from optional assumptions that generate insoluble problems.
Classical pragmatists like Peirce, James, and Dewey, along with their followers in the pragmatic movement, were influenced by American naturalism, Darwinian thought, Hegelian metaphysics, and Hegel’s social philosophy. They developed distinctive approaches to a wide range of philosophical issues that have had enduring influence on American intellectual life for over a century.
The philosophy of education, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of science and logic are just a few of the areas that have received rich pragmatist contributions. The pragmatist tradition continues to flourish with new work.
In recent decades, neo-pragmatism has made a major impact in many areas of philosophy. The pragmatist theory of knowledge and epistemology, in particular, have gained in prominence. The pragmatist theory of ethics and the philosophy of language have also been important. Applied fields such as public administration, political science, leadership studies, international relations, and research methodology have also drawn heavily on pragmatism.
The most controversial area of pragmatism concerns the status of truth. Pragmatists have developed an original a posteriori epistemology based on the idea that truth is the product of inquiry and action rather than being innately possessed by any entity. The pragmatist view of truth has been criticized as a form of relativism.
Another central issue is the relationship between experience and knowledge. The pragmatists believe that the only true way to acquire knowledge is through direct experience, and that this epistemological fact should be taken into account when making decisions.
Another key issue is the question of whether or not there is a meaningful distinction between a pragmatist epistemology and an analytic epistemology. Some neo-pragmatists, such as Korta and Perry, have argued that there is no meaningful difference between the epistemology of pragmatism and analytic epistemology, while others, such as Brandom, have asserted that there are significant differences.