[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 180 KB, 450x292, rorty_sup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16546052 No.16546052 [Reply] [Original]

What are some good books about pragmatism? Where do i start?

>> No.16546064

Read William James and then move on to Alfred North Whitehead.

>> No.16546107

>>16546064
Thanks. Any specifics?

>> No.16547645

>>16546107
Jones' history of western philosophy part 4 should have what you're looking for anon.

>> No.16547874 [DELETED] 

>>16546052
The grand trio of American pragmatism are Peirce, James and Dewey, in that order.

Peirce is dense (just take a glance at his essay on the categories), he never wrote a single book but countless articles instead. You might want to read some of them, but make sure to consult secondary sources. His collected papers are easily found online by the way.

On the other hand, William James' seminal work, The Principles of Psychology, is a smooth, enjoyable and insightful read.

Dewey is dry, dense and terribly boring. Not sure if I would recommend any of his books or papers, a short summary of his philosophy would most likely suffice.

On a side note, the man in the picture you posted wrote a great book named The Consequences of Pragmatism. If you have some background in philosophy, you could actually read some parts of it as a general introduction into pragmatism.

>> No.16547896

>>16546052
lol is that Sawyer who got killed by Pseudo-Sawyer?

>> No.16547903

>>16546052
not

>> No.16548457

straight outta dr. seuss that mug

>> No.16548694

>>16546052
The Pragmatic Maxim - Christopher Hookway
Pragmatism: The Classic Writings - H.S. Thayer
American Philosophy: From Wounded Knee To the Present - Erin McKenna and Scott Pratt
Truth and Justification - Juergen Habermas

>> No.16549428

>>16546052
Read Peirce, then ignore the rest and read more Peirce

>> No.16549460
File: 7 KB, 225x225, 5C8053E2-37EC-4DE4-B146-F61C45ABA740.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16549460

Machiavelli

>> No.16549562

James, Dewey (a lesser James), Sellars.

Pragmatism has unfortunately been misunderstood by many people who despise it as nihilistic relativism, and then by a bunch of people who worship it as "therapeutic" meta-philosophy in a way that crushes all its real beauty. James and Sellars will show you the real beauty if you're capable of seeing it, at least.

Peirce is a bit harder to pin as a pragmatist, because he was all over the place with his ideas and modern peirceans are mostly idiots, but you should read him too.

I'm not going to tell you not to read anything by people who operationalise pragmatism, but at least be wary that most operationalisations of it are vulgarisations. Rorty is a "high" or clean version of this operationalist pragmatism, maybe a good starting point, but please don't associate pragmatism with Rorty's final position of ugly quietism.

>> No.16549800

>>16546052

There is a huge swath of things that fit under the general kind of movement called "Pragmatism." You have people like Quine, Davidson, Putnam, van Fraassen, Rorty (as you pointed out); all kinds of branches in epistemology, mathematics, philosophy of science. I would suggest picking a sub-topic you find interesting and then seeing who in that topic is staking out the "pragmatist" version.

>> No.16549909

>>16549562
>Peirce is a bit harder to pin as a pragmatist, because he was all over the place with his ideas
Kinda funny how you call modern Peirceans idiots when you repeat this utter misconception that is not true at all. This is mainly an issue that arose from the absolutely retarded way the Peirce papers were handled, published, and even censored by harvard after Peirce and Royce's death. Peirce scholarship has undeniably shown a clear consistent and chronological development and coherence in Peirce's thought, this has been known since the 60's. Stop repeating talking points from people who haven't done the reading on Peirce.
slanderous psued, modern Peirceans are often ridiculously intelligent, if you doubt this take a look at the Peirce list serve. Sometimes their enthusiasm gets the better of them but that's also where it gets interesting and suggestive.

>> No.16549999

>>16546052
Don't, it's useless

>> No.16550019

>>16549562
What particular works by those three would you recommend?

>> No.16550027

>>16549909
Acting like a cultist is just proving my point. Sorry I insulted your messiah by daring to imply there has been some controversy about interpreting his ideas, which you incidentally agreed with.

>slanderous
I recommended Peirce and evaluated him positively. I just didn't sing a paean to him like you apparently do every time his name comes up. This is why modern peirceans are mostly asses.

>> No.16550098

>>16550027
Unironically, if you do not literally worship Peirce you are a psued.

>> No.16550125

>>16550019
I'll let the Peirce guy recommend where to start with Peirce since it's his thing but the Pragmatism lectures are good by James, and then it more depends what your interests are. He applies pragmatist thinking in a difficult way that has been almost universally misinterpreted in the essay The Will to Believe, so reading that could be a good test of your thoughts on it. It's at least provocative. He developed pragmatism more and inspired lots of critical realism people in Essays in Radical Empiricism / A Pluralistic Universe which I have in a combined edition but honestly it can be a hard read if you are skimming it for a system, again lots of people misinterpret it. Varieties of Religious Experience is a more famous one and has pragmatism implicitly in it, but it's more like a philosophical psychology of belief and how it manifests integrally in our personalities and worldviews. If you are interested in philosophical psychology his Principles of Psychology is one of the best things ever written on psychology in general. He also has lots of occasional essays on things like parapsychology, drug use, the modalities of belief and epistemic commitments, so you can poke around and always find something if you end up falling in love with him as a thinker.

Dewey I don't know as much about, but probably the Quest for Certainty and/or Experience and Nature. But read about him before reading him directly. A lot of people who are deeply committed to Dewey like what he either used pragmatism for, or what his pragmatism can be used for, more than they like the speculative philosophical potential of it, which is more a James thing. I'm biased as fuck here obviously so read between the lines as needed.

Sellars is really hard to read in my opinion but it's because he's so original that he is taking his own direct path to the major problems (and he is deeply read in how these problems have been explored in recent centuries, and often assumes you are too). The one you'd read in a class covering him is his famous "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind." Also "Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man." But I wonder if these end up turning more people away than they attract to Sellars. When I think of my fellow students and friends reading and discussing these essays I think of their half-understanding and eventual giving up, and I also think of bad presentations by professors who only wanted one conceptual "thing" from the essay, while being willing to discard the rest.

I don't know, it's hard for me to answer. For me the best of Sellars is in his incredibly difficult essays on the history of modern philosophy. But like I said they feel dense to read, they don't flow along, you have to follow him step-wise. One of his former students amazingly uploaded this from a personal recording and it might give you a taste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UiV-vMOueY

>> No.16550141

>>16549909
Would you be kind to explain Peirce's central idea to me, namely that everything is a sign and that signs don't even require human beings to be interpreted?

>> No.16550148

>>16550125
(continued)

Interesting aside about Sellars, his wife was deeply interested in parapsychology and mysticism herself, and he remained open to it his whole life:
http://www.ditext.com/sellars/felder.html

>>16550098
Hey as you can see I have my own intellectual heroes, I even love Peirce. I just think being rabidly defensive of anything to the point that you have to attack doubters and people outside the fold is dangerous. Turns you into a man of one book. If you're ever so convinced of something intellectually/philosophically that you're willing to lash out at a doubter over it, something's gone wrong in my opinion - case in point, what I just said about Sellars' radical openness to even his wife's kooky ideas.

>> No.16550220

>>16550125
>>16550148
Thank you for the effortposts anon.

>> No.16550268

>>16550141
Possibly in a few hours, I'm busied atm.
>>16550148
Hey that's a point I can't ignore. I'm fairly self aware and notice this. A truly embrassing post from me. Tbh I've been wanting to escape from Peirce for a while now, I've heard that sellars is capable of that. So I'm sorry that I had to post cringe,
that didn't do you or peirce justice. I am not thinking soberly lately and I didn't read the rest of your post or reflect on my reply to it until now.

>> No.16550678

>>16550268
Hey don't be so hard on yourself, no cringe on my end. I was being a dick too and calling people idiots and shit, so it's easy to see why you were provoked. Plus as soon as I saw this post >>16550098 I knew you were being tongue in cheek.

Sometimes I mix registers on 4chan, it's fun to be an over the top vitriolic asshole, but then I end up gradually sliding into an effortpost and it's like well fuck, do I go back now and erase the "ALL FUCKING BEHAVIORALISTS MUST FUCKING HANG" first part of the post?

>> No.16550687

>>16550220
Also np, hope anything helps..