The American Pragmatists

<p>The American Pragmatists - Cheryl Misakhttps://youtu.be/jjNypOXwsCMPragmatism is American s home-grown philosophy, but it is not widely understood. This partly is due to the fact that Pragmatism emerged out of deep philosophical disputes among its earliest proponents: Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although it is agreed that they are the founders of Pragmatism, they also held opposing views about truth, meaning, reality, experience, and value. A further complication emerges in that it is widely believed that Pragmatism was purged from the philosophical mainstream and rendered dormant sometime around 1950, and then recovered only in the 1980s by Richard Rorty. In her new book, The American Pragmatists, Cheryl Misak presents a nuanced analysis of the origins, development, and prospects of Pragmatism. She shows that Pragmatism has always come in a variety of flavors, ranging from the highly objectivist and realist views of Peirce and C. I. Lewis to the more subjectivist and nominalist commitments of James and Rorty. More importantly, Misak demonstrates that Pragmatism has been a constantly evolving philosophical movement that has consistently shaped the landscape of English-language philosophy. On Misak s account, Pragmatism is the philosophical thread that runs through the work of the most influential philosophers of the past century. Her book will be of interest to anyone with interest in Pragmatism or twentieth-century philosophy.</p>

<p>This interview is from the New Books in Philosophy podcast. For more information, go to www.newbooksinphilosophy.com.</p>

<p>00:02
welcome to the new books and philosophy
00:04
channel of the new books Network
00:06
my name is Robert Solis I am professor
00:09
of philosophy at Vanderbilt University
00:11
and I co-host the channel with Gary
00:13
figure today my guest is Professor
00:16
Cheryl me sack
00:17
Cheryl is professor of philosophy at the
00:20
University of Toronto we'll be talking
00:22
about her new book the American
00:24
pragmatists which has just been
00:26
published with Oxford University Press
00:29
pragmatism is America's homegrown
00:31
philosophy but it's not widely
00:34
understood this partly is due to the
00:37
fact that pragmatism emerged out of deep
00:40
philosophical disputes among its
00:43
earliest proponents Charles Sanders
00:45
Perce William James and John Dewey
00:49
although it is agreed that they are the
00:51
founders of pragmatism they also held
00:55
opposing views about meaning truth
00:58
reality and value a further complication
01:03
emerges and that is widely believed that
01:06
pragmatism was purged from the
01:09
philosophical mainstream and rendered
01:11
dormant sometime around 1950 but then
01:15
recovered only in the 1980s by Richard
01:18
wordy in her new book professor me sack
01:22
presents a nuanced analysis of the
01:25
origins development and prospects of
01:28
pragmatism she shows that pragmatism has
01:32
always come in a variety of flavors
01:35
ranging from the highly Objectivist
01:37
views of purse and Lewis to the more
01:41
subjectivist commitments of James and
01:43
Rudy more importantly music demonstrates
01:48
that pragmatism has been a constantly
01:51
evolving philosophical movement that has
01:53
consistently shaped and formed the
01:56
landscape of English language philosophy
01:59
on me Sachs account pragmatism is the
02:03
philosophical thread that runs through
02:06
the work of the most influential
02:08
philosophers of the past century purse
02:11
James Dewey Lew
02:14
Goodman Quine sellers Putnam Rorty and
02:18
beyond our book will be of interest to
02:22
anyone with interests in pragmatism or
02:24
in twentieth-century philosophy
02:27
so let's now turn to the interview hello
02:30
Cheryl me sack how about how are you
02:34
doing today I'm very well thank you well
02:35
thank you so much for joining us on new
02:37
books and philosophy it's my pleasure
02:39
today on new books in philosophy my
02:42
guest is Professor Cheryl me sack Cheryl
02:45
has just published a book titled the
02:47
American pragmatists with Oxford
02:49
University Press
02:50
and I'll highly recommend this book and
02:52
I recommend it not only to those who may
02:55
be listening who have an interest in
02:56
pragmatism as a philosophical tradition
02:58
and movement but also recommend it to
03:02
those with interests in 20th century and
03:05
indeed 21st century philosophy in her
03:09
book Cheryl manages to strike a very
03:12
admirable and delicate balance between
03:15
historical narrative and telling the
03:17
story of the development of pragmatism
03:19
as a philosophical movement
03:21
philosophical exegesis and telling
03:23
giving accounts philosophical accounts
03:26
of what pragmatist tend to think and how
03:28
they argue for distinctive philosophical
03:30
theses it also first order a
03:33
philosophical argument of her own where
03:35
Cheryl defends certain philosophical
03:38
claims that may have their origin in
03:43
historical pragmatist texts but Cheryl
03:46
makes her own case for many cases a
03:49
novel interpretations of those theses so
03:53
the book results in something I would
03:55
say it's a very exciting we emerge from
03:58
Cheryl me sex the American pragmatists
04:00
with a new understanding of pragmatism
04:03
both as a historical tradition a ongoing
04:06
historical tradition and as a living
04:09
philosophy and still emerging and
04:12
growing philosophical program so there's
04:15
a lot to discuss but before we get into
04:18
the details of the book Cheryl why don't
04:21
you tell our listeners something about
04:22
yourself for your kind words and I saw
04:27
was born in a place called Lethbridge
04:29
Alberta which is within cycling distance
04:32
from sweetgrass Montana and perhaps
04:35
that's all the listener needs to know
04:37
about where I come from and I did my
04:41
undergraduate degree at the University
04:43
of Lethbridge then went to work with
04:46
Isaac Levi at Columbia where I did a
04:49
master's degree starting to think more
04:52
carefully through some pragmatist themes
04:55
and then I went to Oxford which may seem
04:59
like the least likely place anywhere to
05:04
work on American pragmatism but actually
05:06
it was an enormous ly fruitful place to
05:09
study I worked with David Wiggins who is
05:12
one of the very best and finest
05:15
interpreters of purses thought and also
05:18
with susan haack who was then at work
05:21
and chris mckay who was at that point at
05:24
birmingham so I was exceedingly well
05:28
supervised in in what might be thought
05:30
to be the least likely place to work on
05:34
American pragmatism for about the last
05:38
20-some years I've been at the
05:41
University of Toronto and although I
05:43
still consider myself very much a job in
05:46
philosopher I have a day job as Provost
05:49
of the University which keeps me mighty
05:51
busy but I have found time to write this
05:55
book it's taken me an awfully long time
05:57
but as I tell myself it perhaps was a
06:01
very good thing that it took me so long
06:04
to write it because it is perhaps more
06:07
careful than it otherwise would have
06:09
been well excellent so let's launch in
06:14
to talking about the book now let me
06:19
begin with just a little background and
06:21
then I've got a series of questions
06:22
about how the book proceeds now a common
06:27
line that is often taken on pragmatism
06:30
which I suspect our listeners will be
06:33
familiar with in some form or another
06:35
has it that pragmatism is an
06:39
intellectual philosophic
06:41
all movement that begins with Charles
06:43
purse William James and John Dewey it
06:47
enjoys some prominence in the early 20th
06:50
century particularly for the decades
06:53
before the Second World War
06:55
but then it falls out of favor following
06:58
the Second World War sometime in the
07:01
late 40s and 50s but then it gets
07:05
revived or rejuvenated mostly by neo
07:11
pragmatist like Richard Rorty now your
07:15
book resists this narrative or a common
07:19
story on several fronts and I want to
07:22
talk about some of the ways in which
07:24
your account of the development of
07:26
pragmatism and and its current state
07:29
departs from this account but one thing
07:33
that struck me about your book the
07:35
American pragmatists is that you have a
07:38
whole chapter about Chauncey Wright who
07:41
was a contemporary of person James and a
07:44
member of the metaphysical Club which is
07:45
this informal gathering of folks around
07:48
Cambridge where these some of these core
07:51
pragmatist ideas were first proposed and
07:53
developed and you even call Chauncey
07:55
Wright one of the founders of pragmatism
07:57
I take it that many of our listeners
08:02
will never have read anything by
08:04
Chauncey Wright and might not have heard
08:06
the name before and might not know
08:08
anything about him otherwise can you
08:10
tell us a little bit about Chauncey
08:12
Wright as a philosopher and then why you
08:14
think that he is among the founders of
08:18
pragmatism yes so one of the wonderful
08:24
things that I discovered in writing this
08:26
this book which really started off as
08:30
being a history of finished off it's
08:32
been a history of the whole of
08:34
pragmatism from the beginning till now
08:37
is that I discovered true gems that had
08:41
been somehow forgotten over the last
08:45
decades in philosophy 20 rights case
08:49
many many decades so 20 rights was
08:52
certainly thought
08:55
the founders of pragmatism purse James
08:57
Oliver Wendell Holmes to be one of the
09:00
founders of pragmatism and in fact
09:02
pursed called him our boxing master they
09:05
all thought that Chauncey Wright had
09:09
taught them most of what they knew and
09:11
they looked up to him as the really
09:14
really smart guy in the room Conti right
09:17
also had Darwin shared this view of him
09:20
Darwin had been in correspondence with
09:23
Wright and had published a pamphlet
09:25
brights on symmetry in the petals of
09:31
flowers and he was just one of the
09:36
leading minds at the time he liked purse
09:39
never managed to get himself a proper
09:42
job in academic philosophy he he was a
09:46
computer for mathematical organization
09:50
and found a bunch of shortcuts to let
09:53
him do all of his years work of
09:56
computing in a few months and then he
09:58
spent the rest of the year
09:59
staying up too late drinking too much
10:01
smoking too much talking too much and
10:04
burned himself out and died altogether
10:08
too young didn't write very much and
10:10
this is why we don't know all that much
10:13
about him but it Chauncey Wright is
10:16
critical for understanding the origins
10:19
of pragmatism because Wright was a
10:21
little bit older than purse and and
10:24
James and Holmes and was this kind of
10:28
guiding spirit behind pragmatism and
10:32
Wright was very clearly working within
10:36
the British empiricist tradition so
10:39
Hamilton Vein mill these were the people
10:42
that Wright was so heavily engaged with
10:45
and when you look at James and his
10:49
radical empiricism and at person's work
10:52
you you get the sense that this the
10:55
pragmatism is very much in the
10:57
empiricist tradition and yet you find
11:00
her hardly mentioning Hume James hardly
11:03
mentioning him and really with the
11:07
exception of
11:08
some of James's work not much focus on
11:11
the empiricism that is built into
11:14
pragmatism and I think a lot of this is
11:17
because they took it for granted that
11:19
this is this was where they were coming
11:21
from and they expected everyone to see
11:23
it but with 20 right that comes up very
11:25
very strongly and in order to understand
11:30
the origins of pragmatism you have to
11:32
understand what philosophers Tonti
11:37
rights and person James were really
11:39
intellectually engaged with and and
11:43
besides the British empiricist it was
11:46
August clumped so they really thought of
11:49
themselves as being a part of the
11:52
positivist movement and that's why
11:53
there's this strain of verification ISM
11:56
to be anachronistic in in their thought
12:00
so they were they were verification as
12:03
the logical empiricists arrived on the
12:05
scene
12:06
but verification is in a much broader
12:08
sense where they wanted to not merely
12:12
bring value under empiricist principles
12:16
and maybe find it drummed out of the
12:18
scientific enterprise but actually bring
12:21
value under the empiricist tent and make
12:24
sure that that our empiricist world view
12:27
made room for value and art and and
12:31
other things that fell by the wayside
12:35
when the logical empiricism
12:37
so understanding tronky right is
12:40
critical in understanding the whole arc
12:42
of of American pragmatism including the
12:46
arc that spans a period of time when the
12:49
logical empiricists came to the shores
12:52
of America well okay excellent so let's
12:56
then pick up on particularly the purse
13:00
and James relation which is a theme
13:07
running through your treatment of the of
13:08
these two figures early in the book
13:11
because the answer you just gave sort of
13:15
emphasize some of the the common ground
13:17
between them they are of a kind of
13:20
empiricist
13:22
there are in both person James a certain
13:25
certain kinds of verification asur what
13:28
we now recognize as verification as
13:29
tendencies certainly the idea that
13:32
philosophical ideas if they're content
13:35
from their connection to experience or
13:37
practice or various kinds of doings and
13:39
under goings but part of your story is a
13:43
story about a struggle particularly
13:46
between person James but then eventually
13:48
between Purse James and Dewey over the
13:53
meaning of the kind of empiricism that
13:56
pragmatists are committed to and maybe
13:59
even if it's if it's right to put it
14:01
this way a struggle over the meaning of
14:02
the pragmatic Maxim and the conception
14:05
of truth that pragmatists are famous for
14:08
championing can you sketch for us a
14:10
little bit of that part of the story
14:11
good so so this really as you know it is
14:15
the very heart of pragmatism the idea
14:17
that all of our philosophical concepts
14:20
need to be linked to our practices so
14:24
the pragmatic Maxim in purses hands
14:28
these the versions of the pragmatic
14:30
Maxim that I think are best are of the
14:34
following sort he says that we have to
14:36
look to the upshot of our concepts in
14:38
order to rightly apprehend them or
14:41
understand them so purse backs all of
14:44
his thoughts about pragmatism and the
14:47
pragmatic Maxim with an extraordinarily
14:48
complex account of meanings and a theory
14:52
of the signs of science and all of that
14:55
is is well worth careful attention but
14:59
for these purposes really what what we
15:03
need to understand in terms of the the
15:06
dynamic between price and James is it is
15:09
it persons pragmatic Maxim was adopted
15:13
by James and that Maxim is you in order
15:15
to understand a concept in philosophy or
15:18
any kind of concept you need to see how
15:21
it cashes out in action and so when they
15:24
turned that maxim on the concept of
15:28
truth purse arrived at the following
15:33
belief is true if it would stand up to
15:36
whatever reasons evidence argument you
15:41
if that belief would be exposed to so a
15:43
belief is true if it would be
15:45
indefeasible or not defeated by whatever
15:49
it might encounter in James's had the
15:54
maximum plant played out very
15:55
differently James said well a belief is
15:58
true if it's good to believe and what's
16:02
good to believe James said will differ
16:04
from from society to society but also
16:07
from person to person so he is infamous
16:11
for arguing in the will to believe that
16:14
if a belief would be good for me and
16:17
maybe not so good for you
16:19
and but let's take his most his most
16:23
infamous example in that paper if the
16:26
belief in God were good for me to
16:28
believe it if it had positive
16:29
consequences for my life and it didn't
16:34
have the same positive consequences for
16:35
your life then I would be justified in
16:39
believing that it was true and it would
16:42
be true for me and you could just
16:46
equally as justifiably not move towards
16:52
that belief and it would not be true for
16:54
you so here we have one maxim you want
16:57
to understand what truth is look to how
17:01
it plays out in our practices of
17:04
deliberation and inquiry and and like
17:06
and you put first you get you get
17:09
something all of these words are
17:15
problematic that's something more
17:16
realist you said you get if a belief
17:19
were to stand up to all the evidence and
17:22
all the argument and reason for and
17:26
against it then it could really were
17:28
into feasible it would be true and with
17:31
James you get if a belief is good in
17:33
some much looser sense is good for me to
17:37
believe and it's true so a person of
17:39
James and John see right wrangled over
17:42
this and and some of the wrangling is
17:45
highly and
17:47
but also really illuminating in terms of
17:50
seeing just how early on these divisions
17:54
in the pragmatist tradition manifested
17:58
themselves so purse said of James is the
18:02
will to believe that that that paper and
18:07
the pieces in it injures a serious man
18:10
very much so nota not something a
18:14
serious man should should be going near
18:18
and twenty right has a wonderful set of
18:22
correspondence about the will to believe
18:25
in it's early early draft so James said
18:29
had had flagged his thoughts that would
18:33
eventually appear in that famous paper
18:35
in a few remarks published in the nation
18:38
and twenty right never everyone because
18:43
James was already famous and well
18:46
thought of Jhansi right read these
18:49
remarks in the nation and then wrote
18:51
letters saying I've set a plan in action
18:55
where I'm going to line wait for our
19:00
friend William and take him on about
19:04
these silly things that he says in the
19:07
nation and so he he one of one of his
19:11
two occasions where he lies in wait for
19:13
James's James his father's house and he
19:17
says in one of these letters I said to
19:20
the youth to James asked him whether
19:24
he's read the the remarks and
19:26
information and Chauncey Wright says yes
19:28
and James says and you know did they
19:30
seem good to you and twenty right says
19:33
well I didn't find any type of graphical
19:36
errors in the document and then he
19:40
launches into a an attack on these ideas
19:43
which in that early instance James had
19:47
made even stronger than in that all not
19:51
still strong paper the will to believe
19:53
where James said if a belief is good for
19:55
me to believe and I have a duty to
19:58
believe it and
19:59
and trying to write argue to him into
20:02
the ground
20:03
saying that the most you can say even
20:07
that is is excessive but the most you
20:11
can say is that you have a right to
20:12
believe it not that you have a duty to
20:14
believe it so they were they James right
20:19
and purse were wrangling over these
20:21
issues right from minute one and it's
20:25
very interesting to see that these
20:27
varied divides are still very present in
20:32
the pragmatist tradition and you know I
20:34
think they're present in the pragmatist
20:36
tradition because they speak to
20:38
important issues that you know are not
20:41
about to go away so I don't think it's a
20:44
bad thing that pragmatists are still
20:47
lining up either on the purse right more
20:51
objective side of the of the scale and
20:55
on the James Ian I would say Dewey in
20:59
and then certainly Morton
21:02
you know radically subjective side of of
21:05
the scale my book is very much an
21:07
argument that purse James and alright
21:11
but sorry Chris Lewis and right have are
21:15
right that it's but much better to be an
21:17
objective pragmatist and a radically
21:19
subjective pragmatist right so let me
21:23
ask you just a quick follow-up question
21:26
about purse and I know that many of our
21:29
listeners will also know that a lot of
21:32
your your previous work has been focused
21:35
on defending a particular version or
21:39
interpretation of purses infamous I
21:42
think it's safe to say end of inquiry
21:45
conception of truth and and and this
21:50
these issues come up in in your in your
21:54
current book as well so as you presented
21:58
purses view of truth you you used a lot
22:02
of wood B's and and and and woods a lot
22:05
of terms that that sound
22:07
modal in a way that might be suspicious
22:10
to
22:12
naturalist empiricists who who might
22:15
have some qualms about wood bees as I
22:20
understand it from reading your book
22:21
purse himself struggled with the modal
22:23
force of what would stand up to attempts
22:27
to undermine it or what would respond
22:30
well to subsequent testing and and and
22:33
scrutiny um particularly when it comes
22:36
to questions of in in some of his
22:38
writings about diamonds that never get
22:41
put to the test whether they can be
22:42
called hard or things hard only if you
22:46
actually perform the test of scratching
22:48
them can you tell us a little bit about
22:50
purses own sort of struggle with what we
22:54
might think of as sort of more
22:55
nominalist flat-footed interpretations
22:59
of the pragmatic Maxim end of his
23:02
subsequent consequent theory of truth
23:04
and some of the the subsequent ways that
23:08
he employs and in trying to to solve
23:10
some some problems with it yes so so
23:13
first corrected a mistake that he made
23:16
in that very early how to make our ideas
23:19
clear of paper so let's just take a step
23:21
back and remember that the purse hardly
23:25
published a thing so he he couldn't find
23:28
a job in academia and spent his his life
23:34
as a working for the US Coast Survey and
23:38
when he he was a difficult guy and
23:40
eventually got turfed from that job and
23:42
then spent the rest of his life in his
23:45
up in his cold attic with not enough
23:47
food writing hundreds and hundreds and
23:50
hundreds of pages of philosophy the vast
23:52
bulk of it never really to see the light
23:56
of day still really to see the light of
23:58
day so a very few early papers of purses
24:03
were published in the popular science
24:05
monthly and purse bemoaned the fact that
24:07
he had to publish in that journal and
24:10
hence he said tailor what he said to a
24:14
very certain kind of audience but in
24:17
that early how to make our ideas clear
24:19
paper where he uses the indicative
24:21
conditional if a diamond lies on the
24:24
bottom of the ocean floor and
24:26
never scratched then what sense does it
24:29
make to say that it's hard because no
24:33
one will scratch it and it won't be
24:35
tested and hence is not hard and very
24:39
god very soon after the publication of
24:42
that paper he realized he just made a
24:44
mistake and he spent the rest of his
24:47
life trying to correct the same I
24:49
replaced that is that indicative with a
24:53
would be with a subjunctive conditional
24:56
so we're a Dimond to lie on the bottom
24:59
of the ocean floor and never be
25:01
scratched you can still say of it were
25:05
to be scratched then it would resist and
25:07
hence it is hard and so he you're right
25:10
he wanted not only to invoke that
25:14
subjunctive conditional when it came to
25:17
both unpacking the notion of meaning and
25:21
unpacking the notion of truth but I he
25:27
also spent a lot of time talking about
25:30
whether whether would B's if you like
25:35
can be said to exist in some way so he
25:39
was a was an anti nominalist and as you
25:42
also pointed out this seems to pull
25:45
against the naturalist strains that lie
25:48
at the very heart of empiricists yeah
25:51
and pragmatist views but this is
25:55
actually what distinguishes pragmatism
25:56
from many other varieties of empiricism
26:01
and the best way to see this is to look
26:03
at pursed and then the pragmatist who is
26:06
his successor and that's CI Lewis so
26:10
both purse and Lewis wanted to make room
26:14
in their logics and both were
26:16
crackerjack logicians crackerjack formal
26:20
magicians for mortal logic I so in the
26:24
very same way that pragmatist want to
26:27
make room in their empiricism for value
26:31
judgments as being genuinely and
26:34
robustly judgments that respond to
26:38
experience
26:40
it's just not going to be the kind of
26:41
sensory experience that you know that
26:45
other kinds of inquiries into
26:47
middle-sized dry-goods are responsive to
26:50
they wanted to say that that the
26:55
subjunctive and would B's and modal
27:00
notions are as real as as other kinds
27:07
well as as real as indicative so this is
27:10
something that distinguishes pragmatism
27:13
from other kinds of empiricism and it's
27:16
it's critical in work of person and it's
27:19
critical in the work of Luis and both
27:21
person Luis sometimes say the following
27:24
look if you want to understand what
27:27
we're getting at don't say we per says
27:30
you want and Luis says if you want to
27:32
understand what I'm getting at when I
27:33
invoke a subjunctive conditional here
27:36
think of it this way we hope that our
27:41
investigations would result in an up
27:45
shock and that hope is really what we're
27:47
talking about when we when we express
27:51
our counted truth and in terms of a
27:55
subjunctive conditional right um
28:00
one one further question uh just to pick
28:03
up on this particularly about the way
28:05
this issue plays out in the person
28:09
account of truth so a moment ago when
28:14
you presented the person thought of
28:16
truth and contrasted it nicely I thought
28:18
with James Ian thought you were able to
28:23
identify versus view of truth without
28:27
making any mention of the thing that has
28:30
come to haunt versus remarks on truth
28:34
which is a series of clumsy I take it
28:39
and maybe at the end of the day
28:42
unintentional or not fully intended
28:44
references to something called the end
28:48
of inquiry or the ideal community of
28:51
inquiry
28:52
so the thought is
28:53
typically expressed is and I'm now
28:56
putting it in a way that makes it
28:58
overtly silly per slot that truth was
29:02
what the ideal community of inquiry
29:04
would believe at the ideal end of
29:06
inquiry now your way of presenting the
29:10
person view of truth makes no mention of
29:12
either of those devices can you say
29:16
something about about that yeah so so
29:19
that's completely right this this one
29:24
phrase is haunted the pragmatists
29:27
account of truth since / spend it so so
29:31
he I think only once mentions the ideal
29:35
end of inquiry were and I think only
29:37
once mentions the opinion that is fated
29:41
to be agreed upon at the end of inquiry
29:44
and these these snappy summaries of his
29:48
view of the truth of stuck to the
29:49
pragmatist view much to its misfortune
29:54
so so again one has to understand that
29:56
hearse hardly published anything and if
30:00
you want to really get a grip on what he
30:02
thought about truth you have to read
30:04
this vast array of of material and what
30:11
he was trying to get at in these very as
30:14
you say clumsy attempts at giving snappy
30:17
summaries of his view of truth it's just
30:20
this idea that we were talking about
30:21
before so how do you unpack this very
30:26
cumbersome idea of a belief that would
30:30
stand up to everything you could throw
30:34
at it for into the indefinite future
30:38
well one way of of capturing it is to
30:42
say as purse sometimes actually very
30:45
frequently said we hope that our that
30:48
our inquiry the one that we're engaged
30:51
in here and now would result in an
30:55
upshot that just couldn't be improved
30:58
upon that was what he more often than
31:01
not said that his account of truth was
31:05
on occasion he took another flyer I had
31:09
seen what it was he said well so what
31:11
I'm trying to say is the belief that is
31:14
fated to be agreed upon at the end of
31:16
inquiry is what truth amounts to and and
31:20
not just as so problematic he saw the
31:23
problems he tried to you know tinker
31:25
with them and then he abandoned that way
31:27
of putting the point and but as you and
31:31
I both know that is what has stock and
31:34
I'm trying very much to unstick that
31:37
snappy summary from the pragmatist
31:39
account of truth at least the person
31:41
practiced counter truth this it's not
31:43
his considered view and and it's it's
31:48
just unfortunate and unfair that that's
31:50
what's seems to stuck right um so this
31:56
provides an occasion to ask you to
31:59
before we move on to something else I
32:03
want to ask you about which is oh I do
32:04
want to hear more about the role that
32:06
Lewis and Quine in particular play in
32:09
your story of pragmatism but while we're
32:13
speaking about person truth I want to
32:16
just ask you to speak a little bit more
32:18
about John Dewey and the role that he
32:21
plays in your story and I mentioned
32:25
Dewey at this point because there is a
32:29
an often cited footnote in John Dewey's
32:35
1938 book on logic where do we praise
32:40
his verses conception of truth be the
32:42
purse gives the best definition of truth
32:44
there is as and then do we attribute to
32:50
purse the end of Inquirer review that
32:51
you've just tried to distance pragmatism
32:54
and and even purse themselves from so
32:59
can you tell us a little bit about where
33:03
do we fits in earlier you you you you
33:07
put Dewey and James into the same
33:09
category as the the non person
33:12
interpretation or the non person strand
33:15
the more subjectivist stress
33:18
and in in pragmatism but can you fill us
33:20
in a little bit more on where Dewey's
33:23
philosophy resides in this narrative yes
33:26
that really is a major question in the
33:32
trajectory of pragmatism so that the
33:35
received view goes like this first James
33:41
founded this doctrine in 1870s and do he
33:47
picked it up and was after James's great
33:51
glorious America's most eminent
33:54
philosopher and academic again America's
33:58
most eminent philosopher and academic
34:01
and then somehow after due his death
34:05
pragmatism just disappeared from the
34:08
philosophical scene and then the reciept
34:10
view has it that it disappeared from the
34:13
philosophical scene because those bully
34:15
boys the logical empiricism round and
34:17
just chaste pragmatism out of best
34:21
philosophy departments in America and
34:25
and you Bob have this lovely term for
34:29
this receipt view you call it the
34:31
Eclipse view and you and I both agree
34:35
that it's a wrongheaded view of the
34:38
history of American pragmatism so so
34:42
what's the right view well and actually
34:45
let me let me throw in another another
34:48
view that is even more wrongheaded and
34:51
that's the man and view right so this
34:53
man didn't this s selling and Pulitzer
34:56
prize-winning book called the
34:58
metaphysical Club which is the club that
35:01
purse Chauncey right William James and
35:05
Oliver Wendell Holmes founded in 1867
35:10
where pragmatism was born man and argues
35:13
for uh I should choose my words
35:19
carefully here I want to say lunatic
35:22
man and argues for a very unusual view
35:26
of the history of American pragmatism
35:28
he takes pragmatism to be
35:32
more or less richard rorty's view and
35:35
quite rightly says that this is more the
35:40
view that that James had but he
35:43
identifies pragmatism in 1867 with
35:47
richard rorty's very let's call it
35:49
subjectivist view and says that after
35:52
the the civil war was such a searing
35:54
event for americans that at the end of
35:58
it they were just really sick of the
36:02
ideas of certainty and confidence and
36:05
they wanted nothing to do with anyone
36:08
who said that they knew the truth about
36:10
anything look where the truth got them
36:13
it got them all of the horror and
36:15
bloodshed of the Civil War so pragmatism
36:18
was born out of that desire to not have
36:24
used the truth that invoked any kind of
36:27
certainty
36:28
once the Cold War came along people
36:33
wanted certainty again and so pragmatism
36:36
was in the doghouse and when the Cold
36:39
War ceased to become an urgent thing on
36:45
people's minds a certain uncertainty
36:48
could rule again and hence Richard Rorty
36:50
would come in with pragmatism and make
36:53
it popular again this is just so far
36:56
from what was actually happening on the
36:59
philosophical ground that that part of
37:02
what I want to do in this book is
37:04
correct both that received view and man
37:07
and view so so what is and what is the
37:13
accurate story of the trajectory of
37:15
pragmatism and where does do we fit into
37:18
it so my on the account that I give we
37:24
had C s purse John T right William James
37:28
Oliver Wendell Holmes carve out a view
37:32
of truth that spoke about the role that
37:36
truth plays in our practices and and
37:40
links truth to our practices of inquiry
37:44
and investigation
37:45
there are two different kinds of
37:47
pragmatism growing out of that
37:49
metaphysical Club one is the more
37:53
subjectiveness James in view and one is
37:55
more Objectivist person right view
37:59
person Chauncey right view and then you
38:03
have with James's death do we taking
38:08
over and the view after do his death
38:11
seeming to fall far far far into the
38:16
backwoods so I think this is not as a
38:21
say an accurate account to the
38:23
trajectory of pragmatism what you have
38:27
at the end of the James Perce period is
38:36
CI Lewis taking that famous course from
38:42
William James and Josiah Royce where
38:45
they did battle over pragmatism and
38:49
empiricism re pragmatism and idealism
38:52
with James arguing for pragmatism and
38:57
voice arguing for idealism you had CI
39:01
Lewis taking that famous course at
39:03
Harvard as an undergraduate siding it's
39:08
not clear where he was siding as an
39:09
undergraduate but at the end of the day
39:11
he came out very much in favor of the
39:14
person more objective view of pragmatism
39:17
and you had John Dewey actually pick up
39:21
the idealism of Royce and and others and
39:26
present a kind of quasi pragmatism that
39:30
I want to argue really derailed
39:35
pragmatism as as as a as a movement is
39:40
it's a bit more complicated than that
39:42
because an essential part of my story is
39:44
this if you look at what CI Lewis did
39:47
with that person account of pragmatism
39:51
you see that view not only continued in
39:57
American philosophy
39:59
actually flourish and be the dominant
40:04
view of philosophy in America so Lewis
40:09
was Quine Quine took his view directly
40:14
from Lewis unacknowledged it's actually
40:17
one of the most shocking episodes I
40:21
think in the history of philosophy how
40:25
lose a student Quine adopted Lewis's
40:30
view wholesale unacknowledged and then
40:33
took it forward sometimes calling it
40:34
pragmatism sometimes not but but
40:39
demolishing his teacher saying his
40:41
teacher Lewis was an advocate of or
40:44
sucked into the myth of the given and
40:47
the analytic synthetic distinction both
40:50
of which are just complete and utter
40:53
falsehoods but you have the view of
40:57
Lewis and purse continued through
41:00
American philosophy in the hands of
41:03
Klein Goodman sellers and many others
41:06
today but it's not called pragmatism
41:09
anymore it's called something else so my
41:12
story is one we're doing is a kind of
41:17
almost a distraction in that he led
41:22
pragmatism off to a certain kind of
41:25
pragmatism off to a dead end and if you
41:28
follow that more promising trail the one
41:34
that starts with person goes through to
41:35
Lewis and then climb and cellars you see
41:38
that pragmatism is actually alive and
41:41
very very well well can you tell us that
41:45
a little bit about about what you think
41:48
the distinctive contributions of Lewis
41:51
were to to the pragmatist tradition now
41:54
I take it that our listeners will be
41:58
familiar with Lewis because of the I
42:01
still think regarded as groundbreaking
42:04
work on modal logic and I also take it
42:09
that the the famous paper on the
42:11
pragmatic conception of the April
42:13
in certain other parts certain other
42:16
things that became the the mind and the
42:18
world order book are probably well
42:22
enough known generally but Louis I think
42:26
you're right to have suggested Louis's
42:29
no longer read in the way that he was
42:33
certainly in his lifetime and shortly
42:35
following his death we've we've sort of
42:38
written him out of the story of
42:41
philosophy in America in a lot of ways
42:43
so what uh what what are we missing it
42:46
by not looking carefully at Louis's work
42:49
so we're missing a lot and I'm the first
42:54
to say that you know that I missed it
42:57
the first time around as well but you
42:59
know I wrote a book on pragmatism and
43:02
ethics and politics practice meant value
43:05
and argued that if you if you looked at
43:11
purses you you could you could find some
43:15
really interesting and sustainable
43:20
things to say about about value that
43:23
really stood up to all of the pressing
43:29
the questions and the excellent debates
43:31
that we currently have about value and
43:33
objectivity and I wrote this book kind
43:37
of sidestepping duty because although
43:39
dewey seemed to me to be the pragmatist
43:41
who spoke about the human input value on
43:44
our radar screens and in such an
43:49
effective way he didn't actually have
43:52
the answers in his own brand of
43:55
pragmatism and i just i managed to write
43:59
this whole book without without
44:02
understanding that CI lewis actually is
44:05
the not just the pragmatist we should
44:07
all be training to if you want to
44:09
understand value and objectivity but the
44:12
philosopher we should turn to if we want
44:14
to come to a good understanding about
44:17
this important set of issues and I had
44:22
read Lewis as an undergraduate in my
44:24
second year in in
44:26
in that callo undergraduate way and then
44:30
had sort of packed them off in the back
44:31
of my mind as someone I had read and
44:34
thought at the time that I understood
44:36
and then hadn't hadn't encountered him
44:39
again in the rest of not only my
44:44
education but in the rest of my
44:46
attending philosophy philosophy
44:48
colloquia and conferences he was just
44:51
absent from the philosophical scene even
44:55
though my philosophical scene was the
44:58
pragmatist scene that's that's really
45:02
striking it's also really striking that
45:06
as I said a few minutes ago if you look
45:09
at client work you can take coins most
45:14
important passages and and set them
45:17
against passages of Lewis's and you
45:20
wouldn't know from whose pen each
45:22
passage came from the views are
45:25
identical nonetheless Quine and Goodman
45:29
and Morton white all those students
45:32
lowered their guns and tried to blow off
45:35
their teachers head about about the
45:40
analytic and synthetic saying that this
45:42
you know I had some outdated and and
45:48
full Hardy
45:50
distinction between the analytic and
45:52
synthetic false Lewis had precisely
45:55
Quinn's view that what we that the
46:00
framework questions questions that we
46:02
held true come what may were things that
46:05
were chosen and we could by doing a lot
46:08
of damage to our conceptual framework by
46:11
making lots and lots of revisions we
46:13
could revise those framework beliefs and
46:17
they were all fallible and I think if
46:22
you have that view of the analytic with
46:23
April I were those sentences are
46:26
fallible you don't have the kind of
46:29
bifurcation that Quine and others were
46:32
railing against they also said that this
46:36
was an adoptee of the method - given
46:40
it is just crystal clear that he was not
46:44
he also took
46:46
experiencial inputs to be exponential
46:50
beliefs to be fallible what he wanted to
46:53
do though was to distance himself from
46:57
Dewey's branded pragmatism where doing
47:01
was only looking forward how does this
47:04
belief change the knowledge situation in
47:08
the future notice thought that in order
47:12
to assess whether a belief is true or
47:18
worth believing you also have to take a
47:20
look at its precedents not only how it
47:23
will play off play out and in the future
47:25
and see if it if it's grounded in in
47:29
experience in the right kind of way
47:31
not grounded with certainty but if it if
47:34
it if it has some kind of experiential
47:37
touchstone so Luis really was the
47:41
pragmatist and remember losing doer you
47:44
were alive at the same time and they
47:47
engaged with each other they both looked
47:50
at each other's news and thought them
47:52
quite foreign despite the fact that they
47:54
were the two famous pragmatist in the
47:57
world but Luis wanted to have a
48:02
pragmatism where you could make sense of
48:04
the ideas of making a mistake
48:07
of learning something of coming to a
48:10
better view and of distinguishing
48:14
between what is valuable to me or what
48:18
seems valuable and what really is
48:21
valuable and and you'll find a parallel
48:25
distinction in his more general view of
48:28
truth you have to be able to distinguish
48:31
between what seems true to me or to us
48:33
and what really is true and that
48:37
distinction in Lewis's pragmatism and in
48:41
purses pragmatism is what I want in this
48:45
book to point to as the kind of
48:49
pragmatism that we should all be
48:50
interested in so this kind of pragmatism
48:53
says
48:54
this kind of practice says look you
48:59
can't talk about truth without talking
49:04
about human practices of inquiry and
49:07
deliberation and investigation and you
49:10
can't talk about value without talking
49:13
about what's valuable to human beings
49:16
what human beings experience is valuable
49:18
so in James's view the trail of the
49:20
human serpent is over everything but
49:23
this kind of pragmatist the purse
49:27
Lewis kind of pragmatist says you still
49:30
need to make sense of the idea of making
49:33
a mistake improving your belief and you
49:36
still need to hold on to that
49:38
distinction between what seems to me to
49:41
be valuable what seems to me to be true
49:43
and what really is valuable and what
49:46
really is true and jury didn't always
49:50
hold on to that distinction and neither
49:55
did his successor warrantied but that
49:59
other kind of pragmatism the climate
50:01
started with person Lewis that is
50:03
actually the naturalist project that we
50:06
find so many people now completely
50:10
engaged in and embedded it right so this
50:16
also now provides an occasion for
50:18
wondering about the ninth chapter of the
50:21
book which is titled
50:23
the rise of logical empiricism so if on
50:28
your account pragmatists both in the
50:34
what you're now calling the the purse
50:35
Lewis trajectory and this other
50:40
trajectory which you're associating with
50:42
James and Dewey and eventually worthy if
50:46
they're both trying in some way to
50:49
preserve an account of value while
50:53
remaining respectable naturalist
50:57
empiricists what's the role of the
51:01
logical empiricist in this story such
51:04
that the logic Olympic Olympia system
51:07
deserves
51:08
chapter one might think well the logical
51:12
empiricist are in or have to be anti
51:14
pragmatists in one way we might even see
51:16
that on on the account that you've
51:18
already sketched Cheryl is well the
51:19
logical empiricists you know if we know
51:22
them as anything we know them as people
51:24
who think that um you know there aren't
51:26
you know value judgments you know can't
51:29
be correct or incorrect or true or false
51:31
they're just you know hoorays and booze
51:33
so what's the role of the logical
51:36
empiricist in the story then so the the
51:40
role is absolutely critical
51:41
um and it's critical in two ways so
51:44
again let's just first take a step back
51:47
and think of this trajectory you've got
51:49
person James and then Dewey and Lewis
51:53
and the and in the continuous next
51:57
generation when Derian Lewis are at
52:01
their height the logical empiricists
52:03
come to America and then in the next
52:07
generation you have Quine lose a student
52:12
in critical of logical empiricism but
52:15
still continuing in that naturalist
52:17
tradition and and leading to some of the
52:21
current natural isms we see today so so
52:25
one reason it's important to talk about
52:26
logical empiricism is it the logical
52:29
empiricists are just a continuous part
52:31
of this story but the much more
52:33
interesting reason to talk about them is
52:36
that when the logical empiricist came to
52:39
america they did not as a receive you
52:42
would have it find a homegrown
52:45
philosophy that was set against their
52:49
scientific logical way of approaching
52:54
the central questions and the central
52:59
methodology of philosophy so as I said
53:03
very early on
53:04
Chauncy right and person James all
53:07
thought of themselves is being engaged
53:10
in the positive the positivist project
53:14
as as a gospel compt had had carved it
53:19
out it's interesting they didn't talk
53:20
much about
53:21
about Hume and the other British
53:24
empiricists but they have had a kind of
53:28
verification is embedded in the
53:30
pragmatic Maxim and and their definition
53:35
of belief was Ben's definition of belief
53:37
it was a dispositional definition of
53:40
belief so when the logical empiricist
53:42
came to america they found a homegrown
53:45
philosophy that was very very like their
53:48
own and in fact they saw dewey as as
53:53
cute as a brother of theirs and Dewey
53:58
was on the Editorial Board of the
54:02
Encyclopaedia unified science he was one
54:06
of the co-authors of the introductory
54:09
volume and then he was the sole author
54:11
of another volume and that volume was
54:14
called a theory of valuation and at that
54:17
point Dewey and the logical empiricist
54:20
all thought of themselves as as being
54:25
engaged in the very same project and
54:27
that was bringing all aspects of human
54:32
endeavor under the principles of science
54:35
and you can dip into any volume but
54:39
Dewey and just hear this again and again
54:41
and again that's what he was doing he's
54:42
bringing value into the realm of science
54:46
the difference is the difference between
54:49
doing the logical empiricist as she's
54:51
twofold
54:52
one and I alluded to this earlier Dewey
54:57
and all the other pragmatists I had a
55:00
commitment to retain a place for value
55:04
whereas the logical empiricism open
55:07
minded about this either there would be
55:09
a place for value it would be kind of
55:12
scientific look at value judgments or
55:19
perhaps value judgments would be
55:21
declared meaningless and hence you get
55:24
the infamous boo hurrah theory of
55:27
meaning what do is called the
55:29
ejaculatory theory so that was one
55:34
difference right so the pragmatist
55:36
we're committed to finding a place for
55:39
value and to be endeth and to thinking
55:41
hard and and and in a sophisticated way
55:44
about value and the empiricist you know
55:47
they were going to see you know they
55:49
were going to toss the dice and see
55:52
where you know what you know what what
55:56
that tossing the dice is wrong metaphor
55:58
they were going they were going to take
55:59
a look at value and they either survived
56:01
their scrutiny or or it didn't
56:05
another difference was that Duty was no
56:09
logician and very soon after he started
56:15
engaging with the logical empiricists he
56:18
started saying disparaging things about
56:20
logic and the logical empiricists
56:24
started to realize that he really
56:26
couldn't do it Jerry had had been in
56:29
purses logic class while purse was for a
56:34
very fleeting time an instructor at
56:36
Johns Hopkins and there are these
56:38
wonderful letters from Dewey he's
56:39
writing to his professors back home in
56:41
Vermont saying mr. purse thinks that
56:44
philosophy is logic I hate this class
56:47
I'm in it and I can't do it I hate it
56:50
and he drops the class and he and Chris
56:54
have a very testy relationship for the
56:57
rest of and and Lewis on the other hand
57:01
was using a crackerjack logician and yet
57:05
he engaged with logical empiricism
57:07
by arguing with them about value and
57:10
about modal logic but seeing that they
57:13
all shared the same the same driving
57:18
theme which was to think about value and
57:23
art and science using only an empiricist
57:30
principles with Lewis a little bit it
57:32
can't throw it in and with person a
57:33
little bit of counter on it right can
57:37
you now sort of bring us to the to the
57:40
latter stage of the book particularly
57:42
the last couple of chapters which in
57:45
which you deal with so
57:47
of the Neo pragmatists and we've been
57:50
talking a lot about Richard Rorty sort
57:55
of on the sidelines of things but also
57:58
Hilary Putnam figures into the story and
58:02
then can you tell us a little bit about
58:04
where pragmatism stands today and what
58:07
with what the frontiers are for for
58:10
pragmatists so it's not for a long time
58:12
and certainly when I was when I was a
58:16
student Richard Rorty was the face of
58:19
pragmatism I I was an undergraduate
58:22
actually I was an undergraduate when
58:23
both philosophy and the mirror of nature
58:25
was published and Hilary putnams recent
58:28
truth in history so actually you know
58:31
even that betrays the received view
58:34
right so when I was an undergraduate
58:36
you know these were two big books two
58:38
big important books and and these were
58:41
the two that you know the two successors
58:46
of the two different kinds of pragmatism
58:49
still slugging it out in a hundred years
58:54
after the birth of pragmatism so Richard
58:58
Rorty is very much the successor of
59:01
especially James but also Dewey's
59:05
pragmatism and Putnam is very much the
59:09
successor of purse and Louis and sellers
59:13
and equipment so we see another very
59:20
interesting issue once they arise but
59:24
actually had been lingering in in
59:28
pragmatist a lot right from the
59:30
beginning but it really became prominent
59:32
the idea that perhaps the pragmatist
59:35
could make use of the disk rotational
59:38
account of truth and that would be all
59:41
that you need to say about truth so this
59:44
is rorty's big move i his on his version
59:49
of pragmatism we do not aim at truth
59:52
inquiries have no use for the concepts
59:56
of truth and objectivity all truth is
60:00
is a kind it's really but let's call it
60:04
redundant to say that P is true is to
60:08
say nothing more than P itself and this
60:12
thought was indeed always present in
60:16
pragmatism this this deflation asad
60:20
about truth
60:21
so truth is not something that goes
60:25
beyond first-order inquiry right so on
60:28
Percy's view it doesn't go beyond
60:30
first-order inquiry in that the the
60:34
upshot of first-order inquiry if it
60:37
results in a belief that really is
60:40
indefeasible
60:41
is true it's the truth and for James the
60:47
upshot of really local first-order
60:49
inquiry like my own results in the truth
60:53
so that that kind of deflation estar is
60:56
always lingering in in in in the work of
61:01
the pragmatist but Rorty really made an
61:05
explicit move he said look we don't need
61:08
to talk about truth all you need to know
61:11
about truth is that if P is true P is
61:20
true if and only if P and we've seen a
61:23
lot of pragmatists and a lot of other
61:25
people just leap on what I want to call
61:28
this quick and dirty solution to the
61:33
problem of truth Putnam was very clear
61:37
that this was a quick and dirty solution
61:42
to the problem of truth and one that the
61:44
pragmatist should not adopt as as an
61:48
easy way out the pragmatist needed to
61:50
say more about truth than the mere
61:54
deflation assad or near redundant
61:57
thought and and here you see I think a
62:01
very very interesting parting of the
62:04
ways of a new parting of the not lacking
62:08
to take that back an interesting parting
62:10
of the ways between pragmatists
62:13
it might look new but actually is is not
62:18
so new and and this will lead me into in
62:23
to your final question which is what am
62:27
I going to work on next
62:29
so if you look what I'm gonna work on
62:34
Max's book called Cambridge pragmatism
62:36
on how the pragmatism of Cambridge
62:41
England ie Frank Ramsey's pragmatism and
62:46
their consigns pragmatism was very very
62:51
heavily influenced by in Ramsey's case
62:54
CS purse and in Dickinson's case William
62:58
James now roundly is is thought by
63:04
everyone to be one of the most
63:08
articulate proponents of the redundancy
63:11
area of truth but in fact Ramsey when he
63:14
died at the age of 26 after having
63:17
founded i-wander decision theory two
63:20
branches of economics upendra
63:22
mathematics he's truly brilliant when
63:26
Ramsey died at the age of 26 he was
63:28
writing a manuscript on pragmatism and
63:32
truth where he was very very clear that
63:36
I that what he wanted to say about truth
63:41
was first what was captured in the
63:46
redundancy thought and that's it there's
63:49
nothing more to saying that he is true
63:54
and then there is in a certain feed but
63:58
that that was just the first step in a
64:03
suitable pragmatist account of truth you
64:06
had to then go on and say build norms in
64:11
to your account of truth and again kind
64:14
of make this distinction between the
64:16
mirror assertion that P or the belief
64:19
that P and and that P is really
64:25
assertable
64:26
or does
64:27
terming of our belief or assent rather
64:32
than just merely being believed or
64:34
assented to so Ramsey is and well Ramsey
64:42
is the inheritor with Lewis of
64:45
persistent truth and I think that what
64:49
all pragmatist should be doing right now
64:51
is taking a hard look at Ramsey is very
64:54
very sophisticated and subtlety of truth
64:56
and then returning to that person Ramsey
65:00
in view and not being tempted by the
65:05
easy seductions of just rest in with
65:08
redundancy or the disk rotational less
65:10
theory well excellent we will keep an
65:15
eye out then for your next book on
65:18
Cambridge pragmatism but for now Cheryl
65:21
you've been very very generous with your
65:24
time and I want to thank you for talking
65:29
to us on new books and philosophy about
65:32
your new book the American pragmatists
65:35
which is just out I think maybe even
65:37
this week just out with Oxford
65:40
University Press thank you
65:44
well I will be in touch with you and
65:47
thanks a lot for joining us thanks bye
65:51
now
65:53
you've been listening to my interview
65:55
with Professor Cheryl me sack of the
65:57
University of Toronto we were talking
66:00
about her new book the American
66:02
pragmatists which is newly published by
66:05
Oxford University Press
66:07
I'm Robert Alicia your host this is new
66:11
books in philosophy thank you for
66:13
listening</p>