The Two Pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty [Paperback]

Howard Mounce (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 27, 1997 | ISBN-10: 0415152836 | ISBN-13: 978-0415152839 | Edition: First Edition

The Two Pragmatisms - From Peirce to Rorty maps the main movements within the pragmatist tradition. Two distinct forms of pragmatism are identified, that of Peirce and that of the `second' pragmatism stemming from James' interpretation of Peirce and seen in the work of Dewey and above all Rorty. Both the influential work of Rorty and the way in which he has transformed contemporary philosophy's understanding of pragmatism are clearly explained.
The Two Pragmatisms - From Peirce to Rorty is essential reading for those interested in the history of this increasingly influential movement, whether first-time philosophers or more advanced readers.

Editorial Reviews

Review

This is a valuable book: it will find a place in introductory courses where Mounce's clear discussion of the central texts in pragmatism will be very welcome.
–Ethics

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: Routledge; First Edition edition (February 27, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0415152836
• ISBN-13: 978-0415152839
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.4 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,759,366 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Pragmatism vs Radical Empiricism, October 9, 1997

By 

Nicolas GACHON ([e-mail]) (Universite de Toulon et du Var, France) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Two Pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty (Paperback)

I do commend this illuminating study to anyone interested inthe meaning and implications of pragmatism. I find itdifficult,however, to subscribe to the author's thesis when he claims that William James and John Dewey drove Pierce's pragmatism on a wrong path at the turn of the century. This may sound self-evident, but pragmatism and radical empiricism were clearly distinct from one another to begin with. There is little - if any - doubt that William James was perfectly aware that the particular kind of philosophy he was developing was steering away from Pierce's pragmatism. Hence, probably, his preference for the formulation 'radical empiricism". Howard Mounce himself writes(p.231)that the pragmatism of James, Dewey and later Rorty "is not a new philosophy but is a variation on Positivism, a form of extreme Empiricism. It is in conflict with the first Prgmatism, not at incidental points, but in its essentials". Should this be regarded as a wrong turn ? Readers may turn to the works of people like James Wesley Robbins (University of Indiana - South Bend) for a slightly different approach to better understand the difference between metaphysical and non-metaphysical pragmatism / radical empiricism, the latter having favored reform and religious freedom at the turn of the century. It could, and should therefore be argued that William James and John Dewey's contribution is to have adapted pragmatism to the 20th century. This cannot be conceived as a wrong turn, James and Dewey made sure pragmatism would never become a dead end.

4 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Mounce on Pragmatism, July 16, 2002

By 

Thomas Baule (San Diego) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Two Pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty (Paperback)

The Two Pragmatisms is for and about Mounce. The four pragmatists covered (Pierce, James, Dewey, Rorty) get a few pages of summary at the begginning of each chapter, the remaining bulk of the book is about the authors personal ideas. Mounce is a religous man, and strongly attacks both Dewey and Rorty. If you are interested in Mounce and his ideas, then read this book, otherwise take a pass. I found it disappointing, poorly written, and really only suitable for Mouncian scholars.