Just as during its development throughout the 19th and 20th century, Pragmatism cannot be so simply characterized. Great minds alike have contributed to the core understanding of this method and/or philosophy, although contrasting ideas exist among them as well. The essential idea of Pragmatism seeks an approach to life, finding truth through consequences, and applying this method not only to fundamental principles, but to anything. A few of the brilliant men responsible for this emergence of work consist of: Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. This being the only philosophical system that originated the United States, it was profoundly cemented.
The “father” of Pragmatism is credited to C. S. Peirce, born 1839, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peirce was nothing short of a genius,
…show more content…
As for the basis of applying their methods to religion, both seemed to be in favor of there being no rational way to settle that debate, therefore using non-rational means to come to a conclusion was acceptable. They were not supportive of the idea that from the beginning everyone is deceived throughout life, and meant to find the truth through their own means. They although were in disagreement with their being multiple truths to settle individual situations, and one truth that can be applied to all. Despite such prosperity of this method, Pragmatism as well as its contributors are not so widely known today. Nonetheless, it had created a foundation of future reasoning’s backed by logic and rationality for many years to come. This idea seemed simple enough, whatever a person’s ideology, philosophy, or religion, the question simply was, what solves the problem? (Garcia, Lec. 5, p 2). Refined by American thinkers but not subjected to them, this was the start of expanding the potential for man’s
C. Stephen Evans is stating there is a problem with the philosophy of religion having a neutral stance. Evans rejects both fideism as well as neutralism, and believes that by trying to have a, “neutral, disinterested posture,” a person could, “cut themselves off from the possibility of even understanding what religion is all about,” (Evans, 1985 p. 115). Evans notes that the view of faith and reason, by some religious believers think it is an impossibility to have “rational reflection” on religion. After his arguments that disprove many ideas in both fideism and neutralism, he proposes an alternative solution which he has named, “critical dialog”, that he hopes will, “preserve the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of the initial theories,” (p. 115). “Correct thinking about religion is rather a genuine faith, a personal commitment,” (p. 116).
By taking a biased point of view, we effectively impair ourselves to the rest of the world, expecting nothing besides what we already believe. But by philosophizing, we expose ourselves to unexpected possibilities and free ourselves from the narrow view of conventional wisdom.
Now that we have a clear picture of the issues being discussed we need to talk about the philosophers. The first philosopher is William James born in New York City during the year of 1842. He was an American philosopher and psychologist, who developed the philosophy of pragmatism. He attended priv...
“Religion is the backbone of evolution.” Without the cultural differences and belief systems we would not have a regulated religious base. It is evident some religions can be both alike but yet still very different. The historical William Bradford and Jonathan Edwards demonstrate this theory. William Bradford portrays more leniencies while allowing for more religious tolerance within the puritan community. With some contrasting beliefs but familiar goals, Jonathan Edwards, pursued a stricter religious background. Both of these author’s play an important role in sculpting the puritan way of life.
Someone who is willing to consider the pros and cons and take the necessary measurements to accomplish that goal with a logical reasoning. I believe that Lucy Stone fits the perfect definition of a pragmatist. Stone was determined on fighting for women’s equal rights. However, her life made her go through different transitions where she knew what her priorities were. Lucy was fully aware that marriage would take her eyes off the equal rights movements. Lucy gave her later to be husband Henry Blackwell plenty of excuses in order to avoid her marriage. Lucy stated that “Men were more immature than women of the same age”(22). After she had her child, Lucy Stone was still engaged during the cause however, she was aware she also had other priorities and she was unable to spend as much time as she wanted to fight for the rights of women. Instead, she took care of Alice. “After Alice’s birth, Lucy overcome by lassitude, retired from her strenuous speaking tours. With the help of the Blackwells she temporarily became a stay-at-home mother”(30). Lucy Stone was a natural leader who was stood up for equal civil rights without forgetting her priorities. Lucy Stone was able to adapt to her situations in life in order to still fight for what she
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
James, William. "Pragmatism." Columbia University, New York. January 1907. Lecture. Web. 24 Feb 2012.< http://www.authorama.com/book/pragmatism.html>
Moore, Brooke Noel., and Kenneth Bruder. "Chapter 6- The Rise of Metaphysics and Epistemology; Chapter 9- The Pragmatic and Analytic Traditions; Chapter 7- The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries." Philosophy: the Power of Ideas. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Different schools of thought have generated arguments since the beginning of civilization. They represent different perspectives of every part of life, whether its religion or politics. The realist school and the humanist perspectives offer people different views in many different aspects.
When we talk about education, we remember our teachers of elementary, middle and high school because they left their mark on our lives, and are who we truly taught things that even we , and we have to our knowledge, is that the main purpose of my philosophy educational. The basis of my educational philosophy pragmatism. The goal of education for pragmatists is the socialization of the individual and the transmission of cultural ideas of man to new generations. In this way, new generations have no need to repeat it step by step, the experiences of their ancestors (Riestra, 1970). The school must be active in developing critical thinking in the learner. This should not be a passive entity in the process of their education, you must learn to learn . The school must prepare students for this interaction with their environment that is always changing.
Johnathan Robert’s life has been characterized by a keen ability to self teach. At two years old, he suffered an accident that broke his femur. Within weeks of his caste being removed, he relearned the skill of walking. At no older than six years old Johnathan had received numerous ear surgeries yet refused to allow his speech to reflect any of his hearing loss. By the age of seven, he had effectively taught himself how to read and write. According to the philosophy of John Locke, Johnathan’s knowledge did not come from innate ideas or principles, but rather from experiences and sensations. Although John Locke’s thoughts were monumental, flaws exist in the rejection of innate ideas.
Charles Taylor, in his “subtraction story,” says people now have secular minds because of “science and objective reason.” A secular way of life gives a person everything they need without having to deal with the morals of religion. In Taylor’s “A Secular Age” he disagrees by saying secular ways of life are no different than the religious beliefs; the secular people have just come up with different ways of thinking about how life should be lived and the views they should have. He says people with a secular view “are subject to their own array of serious problems and objections.”
“In the place where idealism and realism meet, that is where there is the greatest evolutionary tension.” Idealism prioritizes ideals, social reforms and morals, by wanting to benefit not just yourself, but the world around you, believing people are generally good. On the contrary, realism gives priority to national interest and security with emphasis on promoting one’s own power and influence by assuming that people are egocentric by nature. Based on the definitions stated above, idealism and realism are significantly different from each other and their divergence of thought is more apparent when various proponents of each such as Woodrow Wilson, Henry Lodge, Barack Obama and George W. Bush have varied outlooks on comparable issues in politics. Subsequently, an idealist’s reaction to a particular issue would be a lot different than a realist’s response. Therefore, idealism deals with normative ideas and allows for improvements in the progress of not only a single state, but the whole world, however realism solely focuses on the benefits of one’s own nation.
When first looking at the relationship between philosophy and religion, I found it easier to explain the differences rather than the similarities. I began this paper the same way I do others. This generally involves a profound amount of research on the topic at hand. However, in contrast to the other papers I have done, the definitions of philosophy and religion only raised more questions for me. It was fascinating how the explanations differed dramatically from author to author.
Aquinas and Augustine's showed their philosophies ,that were derived ancient philosophers, when they spoke of faith and reason, both of them tried to get there point out in there own way. Aquinas and Augustine both had one goal and and that was too prove that Christianity was somehow intertwined with philosophy and Both of them did just that, many people may or may not agree with these philosophies but it just depends on the type of person you are. Many people like to live off fact and know for certain, but like Aquinas and Augustine we all have our own philosophies, we choose what to believe and what not to believe. We are not machines nor are we controlled by one. We are after all humans and have free will, what we want to believe in is ours for the