Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:10:57.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

WHO OWNS PRAGMATISM?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2017

BRUCE KUKLICK*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Pennsylvania E-mail: bkuklick@sas.upenn.edu

Extract

In the opening years of the twentieth century a furious contest broke out over the meaning of pragmatism in professional philosophical circles in the United States. When William James introduced his idea to the learned public at the University of California in 1898, he credited Charles Peirce as its prime mover. After James's lecture became known, Peirce, an impossible man who did not know on which side his bread was buttered, re-christened his brainchild pragmaticism to make sure no one confused it with the foolishness of James. When John Dewey made his mark and critiques of pragmatism emerged, Dewey said that we should not argue about a brand name. Nonetheless, he still gave his own philosophy a new designation, dubbing it instrumentalism to avoid the charges unleashed against James. Were there, then, three styles of this speculative tendency? Arthur O. Lovejoy was an unrelenting opponent of the tendency. In 1908 he mocked these thinkers, and wrote in the Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods a captivating and long-cited essay, “The Thirteen Pragmatisms.”

Type
Essay
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For help with this essay, I would like to thank Robert Brandom, Paul Coates, David Hollinger, Joel Isaac, and the editors of this journal.

References

* For help with this essay, I would like to thank Robert Brandom, Paul Coates, David Hollinger, Joel Isaac, and the editors of this journal.