Pragmatic is the study of language use in context. It is a subfield of linguistics, and also has some connections to philosophy. It examines how context contributes to meaning, and what effect that has on interpretation. It has two main branches: near-side pragmatics and far-side pragmatics. Near-side pragmatics (in the sense of Kaplan’s theory) addresses issues such as how to resolve ambiguity and vagueness, how to refer to things that are not immediately obvious from the context, and how to deal with indexicals and anaphors. Far-side pragmatics addresses more complex issues, such as the relationship between semantics and presupposition.
Pragmatism is a philosophy of dealing with problems sensibly and realistically. It is sometimes viewed as a more practical alternative to idealism. The word ‘pragmatic’ derives from the Greek root word meaning “to be done or done up”; thus, pragmatism is about putting into practice what works, rather than what should work.
A person who has a pragmatic attitude will look for solutions that have the best chance of succeeding in the real world, and are not too theoretical. In the political world, for example, pragmatic people are more likely to support proposals that will have a good chance of passing than those which will not be widely supported. In personal relationships, a pragmatic person will seek out a solution that is both effective and fair.
The main difference between pragmatic and idealistic is that pragmatic people take into account the consequences of their actions, whereas idealists are more concerned with what is right. They often have high moral standards and will be reluctant to compromise them for the sake of practicality.
The main issue with pragmatism is whether it is appropriate to mix’realist’ and ‘pragmatist’ approaches. Some pragmaticians will argue that it is not, and that pragmatism should be reserved for those situations in which a more theoretical approach would not work, but others will disagree. In any case, it is clear that pragmatism should not be used as an excuse to avoid using more thorough methods for investigating a problem. It is a useful tool to have when trying to make decisions, but it should be combined with a broader understanding of how people think and what they want to achieve. If it is not, the pragmatic approach can lead to disastrous results. For example, if you have a good moral foundation but fail to take into account the effects of your actions, then you will be unable to respond appropriately when faced with a moral dilemma. For this reason, it is a good idea to consult a philosopher or expert in your field of interest before deciding which approach to take. This will ensure that you are not making the wrong decision.