Philosophical pragmatism is the answer to scepticism

Truth is found in what is useful, making knowledge a tool for productive action. By focusing on what is useful, it helps to ignore the critics.

Philosophical pragmatism is the answer to scepticism

Philosophical pragmatism is the only school of thought that originated in America, taking on distinct characteristics through the work of its three initial enunciators: Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. This trio laid the foundations in the early 20th century, and were followed later by prominent American thinkers such as Richard Rorty and Willard Quine.

Pragmatism’s central tenet is that truth does not reside in the alignment of thought with reality (as suggested by the ancient philosophers) nor in consistency (defined as the logical coherence and non-contradiction prized in formal sciences like mathematics). Instead, pragmatism locates truth in what proves useful to people in their practical lives. Pragmatists are less concerned with truth in itself than with ideas that can be verified through broad experience.

For them, truth is what can be achieved and demonstrated in practice. Therefore, a claim’s validity is measured by its benefit to the greatest number of people, and reason reaches its highest purpose when it guides humanity toward practical usefulness.

Discerning truth

Peirce, James, and Dewey were not interested in mere contemplation or scrutinising statements to discern truths from falsehood. Rather, they concurred on orienting the mind toward action. For them, knowledge was a tool for productive action.

They stripped thought of its status as a means to probe ultimate principles, much like the early Chinese sages who wanted to know not where the world came from, but how the world works.

Pragmatism locates truth in what proves useful to people in their practical lives

This approach distinguished pragmatism as an original and novel philosophy. Why did it emerge—and why did it emerge when it did? For me, pragmatism was the culmination of the Enlightenment's intellectual battles.

Dogmatists failed to repel the sceptics' arguments; we lack any definitive standard that can distinguish truth. Everything once touted as 'proof' has proven to be little more than argument and rhetoric.

The history of philosophy is essentially an attempt to answer these individuals, who infused humanity with doubt, liberated the world from dogma, and led some to a state of epistemic suicide, denying the existence of knowledge altogether, however small.

Deceptive senses

We have reason, senses, and intuition to guide our judgments, yet minds differ from, conflict with, and even contradict one another. The senses deceive, like the mirage appearing as water, or the stick appearing bent when partially submerged.

Intuition, being intensely personal, cannot offer universally applicable insights. Thus, when objectivity becomes impossible, only subjectivity remains. This realisation led many philosophers to despair.

William James himself hinted at this in his statement that philosophy is merely a clash between great minds across centuries, a battle of temperaments shaped by the variances of human intellect and ever-shifting personal and social circumstances.

This clash is influenced not only by the number of philosophers but also by the changing moods of individual thinkers, reflecting the fluctuations in human emotions and in social and political condition and the system that determines their personal lives.

From here, pragmatism takes its turn. If you cannot distinguish water from a mirage or a straight stick from a bent one underwater, then focus on what is useful to you.

Naturally, there will be plenty of criticism and mockery directed at pragmatism and its definition of truth, with claims that it disregards the 'real truth.' Let the critics continue seeking alignment between thoughts and reality. Engaging with them is a waste of time.

font change