Does the Pragmatist move away from abstract metaphysical concepts such as “fairness,” “equality,” and “justice,” and towards the practicalities of inquiry, provide a sufficient basis for (deliberative) democracy?
Quotes to consider: No particular results then, so far, but only an attitude of orientation, is what the pragmatic method
means. The attitude of looking away from first things, principles, ‘categories,’ supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts.(James: What Pragmatism Means)
– Knowledge, as an abstract term, is a name for the product of competent inquiries… [I]nquiry is a continuing
process in every field with which it is engaged. The “settlement” of a particular situation by a particular inquiry is no guarantee that that settled conclusion will always remain settled. The attainment of settled beliefs is a progressive matter; there is no belief so settled as not to be exposed to further inquiry. It is the convergent and cumulative effect of continued inquiry that defines knowledge in its general meaning. (Dewey, Logic)
– Effective inquiry [according to Putnam] required that the community of inquiry not only be inclusive but that its practices be democratic. For Dewey, Putnam says, “the need for fundamental democratic institutions as freedom of thought and speech follows … from requirements of scientific procedure in general: the unimpeded flow of information and the freedom to offer and to criticize hypotheses.” Successful inquiry in all fields, including science, rested in part on a democratic “discourse ethics” that shaped the cooperation of the community of inquirers. (Westbrook: Pragmatism and Democracy
– Roughly, the Peircean holds that to be a believer is to be a truth-seeker, to be a truth-seeker is to be an inquirer, to be an inquirer is to be a reason-giver, and to be a reason-giver is to be a reason- exchanger, a member of a community of inquiry…Such a community would maintain roughly liberal policies, such as the protections outlined in the Bill of Rights; however, it would see these principles not as products of a Lockean Law of Nature …but rather as prerequisites of, and
instruments towards, the cultivation of ….a “republic of reasons.” (Talisse; Towards a Peircean Politics of Inquiry)
– If Pragmatism is true it has nothing to say to us; no politics follows from it or is blocked by it; no morality attaches to it or is enjoined by it…Moreover, not only is there nothing you can do with a pragmatist account, there is nothing it makes you do; it doesn’t commit those who are persuaded by it to any particular course of action or way of proceeding.
(Fish: Afterword…).
In the paper, present an argument, a counter-argument and your response to the counter-argument. Attached below are the only documents that can be used for citing purposes. No outside sources! Include a bibliography at the end and, within the paper, use textual references rather than footnotes (e.g., Dewey, 12). You may refer to contemporary social and political relations in your argument. But, if you do, build your argument first through the course materials, then utilize these relations as examples of your argument.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|