Customer Reviews

The Two Pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.