Pragmatic is an approach to philosophy that stresses the connection between thought and action. Its proponents claim that practical applications of the pragmatist philosophy can be found in fields such as public administration, political science, leadership studies, international relations, conflict resolution, and research methodology. The pragmatist movement is often considered to be a synthesis of various philosophical traditions such as empiricism, naturalism, utilitarianism, and hermeneutics.
The word pragmatic is derived from the Greek noun “pragma,” which means “practical,” or “fitting for purposes.” People who are considered to be pragmatic are concerned more with matters of fact and with what works than with concepts such as what might be true or what should be the case. The pragmatist philosophy is often applied to the world of business where leaders and managers are expected to use their resources wisely in order to achieve their objectives.
Many philosophers have embraced the principles of pragmatism, particularly John Dewey and William James. Dewey and James viewed knowledge as something that comes about through direct experience and that, therefore, it is best understood in terms of its usefulness. They believed that most of the philosophical issues concerning the nature of knowledge, language, and thought (e.g., the nature of reality, the meaning and value of life, the relationship between religion and science, and the skepticism that is associated with anti-skepticism) are better viewed in terms of their relevance to real human problems.
A pragmatist is also likely to believe that most scientific theories should be tested for their validity rather than being taken at face value. In this sense, pragmatism is often a form of radical empiricism. It is a view that is also endorsed by philosophers such as Richard Rorty, who wrote the book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.
The field of pragmatics is an area of study that examines the ‘practical implications of language’ and how the words we say are used in particular contexts. There are different views as to what constitutes pragmatics, but the general line of thinking is that pragmatics is a sub-discipline of semantics.
It is often argued that the notion of communicative intention, or M(eaninging)-intention, as defined by Grice, is pragmatics. In addition, a number of pragmaticists have argued that pragmatics includes the notion of conversational implicatures and the concept of contextually relevant rules.
There are a number of different approaches to pragmatics that are characterized by their methodological approach, the specific fields they focus on, and how they differ from semantics. In general, there are those who see pragmatics as a philosophical project; those who concentrate on its interaction with grammar and those who see it as an empirical psychological theory of utterance interpretation. A general tendency is for those who see pragmatics as a philosophical pragmatic theory to argue that the traditional territory of semantics should not be invaded by pragmatics. However, other pragmaticists such as Saul Kripke have argued that the distinction between semantics and pragmatics is a false one.