@@Sazi_de_Afrikan Dewey's "experimental" school was mainly composed of children of university professors, with like 1 teacher for 8 students. And they STILL had to learn math and how to read and write at home. Having students lead themselves in education -- or just about anything else -- is most definitely NOT pragmatic. See: all known societies.
I received my 1st Grade education in a Magnet school. I remember a few things, but I'll never forget how I learned: everything was by practice. Memorizing concepts and vocabulary was an unnecessary task. All it mattered was that I knew how to express myself eloquently to an audience and know the subject I am talking about. I remember doing things as simple as grabbing a plush toy (I mostly picked a penguin or polar bear) and talked about the animal and where it was from, as well as talking about the habitat and conditions they lived in. Just recently I reminisced about my education in that Magnet School in Montgomery, Alabama. I was taught, by sheer practice, the basic steps of the scientific method. It was something that came naturally from the teachers to us, students. This is pragmatism: practically showing knowledge. It doesn't matter how much you memorize (or well, it is necessary but at a more suitable stage), so as long as you can eloquently express your (accurate) knowledge in a convincing and confident manner. You cannot blow smoke out of your ass, nor you can have a lot of knowledge but also carry the crippling inability to work with other people in a team to produce a scientifically pertinent project. You must be both, and by sheer force of practice (and pragmatic inquiry) people learned. I don't know about US schools nowadays, but internationally, US schools were characterized by this: showing things the practical way. If you do not believe me, then Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions are, imho, a really good example of pragmatic philosophy. And his work is no "disaster". I find his work very reliable when teaching about evolution and progress on *many* subjects. Albeit elusive at times, the concept of a "paradigm" can work wonders and I also see that one as a solid example of pragmatic philosophy.
Pragmatism is anathema to philosophy 😂. Is an anti-philosophical attitude parading as a philosophy. Which itself relies on pragmatism to be accepted as a philosophy. There is really nothing more anti philosophical than to just go with it and dont think about it too much. 😂 what are you at the wrong club? 😂
Mostly “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,” but also other writings of Peirce. My interpretation has also been influenced by Kevin Kelly’s work on inductive methodologies.
There is a difference in meaning, but no difference in meaningfulness, whether or not God's properties are essentially identical or distinct. Obviously, there is a difference in conceptual meaning, otherwise no controversy would arise in the first place as to which conception of God is true. However, so long as all the properties are the same set of properties in both conceptions, there is no difference in the meaningfulness of these conceptions for our lives. The fundamental mistake of Pragmatism is to confound conceptual meaning with practical meaningfulness.
A major difference is in the principles governing the dynamics. For Hegel, it is rather mysterious laws of the unfolding of Spirit. For Perice, it's scientific method. Also, Hegel is committed to Spirit as a thing; I don't see Peirce as committed to any underlying metaphysical unity.
Glad I am up at 1am to catch this lecture on pragmatism! Not a student but love this channel
1:05 am now where I'm at 😁
Thanks Dr Daniel you are one of the best RUclips lecturers
Thou forgot a American Transcendentalism inquiries in the structure of Pragmatism in US.
Needs actual EXAMPLES of how "pragmatic" philosophy yields better results. Certainly a DISASTER in education.
Lol guess you've never attended a Dewey school
@@Sazi_de_Afrikan Dewey's "experimental" school was mainly composed of children of university professors, with like 1 teacher for 8 students. And they STILL had to learn math and how to read and write at home. Having students lead themselves in education -- or just about anything else -- is most definitely NOT pragmatic. See: all known societies.
If it doesn't yield better results, it is by definition not pragmatic, is it?
I received my 1st Grade education in a Magnet school. I remember a few things, but I'll never forget how I learned: everything was by practice. Memorizing concepts and vocabulary was an unnecessary task. All it mattered was that I knew how to express myself eloquently to an audience and know the subject I am talking about. I remember doing things as simple as grabbing a plush toy (I mostly picked a penguin or polar bear) and talked about the animal and where it was from, as well as talking about the habitat and conditions they lived in. Just recently I reminisced about my education in that Magnet School in Montgomery, Alabama. I was taught, by sheer practice, the basic steps of the scientific method. It was something that came naturally from the teachers to us, students.
This is pragmatism: practically showing knowledge. It doesn't matter how much you memorize (or well, it is necessary but at a more suitable stage), so as long as you can eloquently express your (accurate) knowledge in a convincing and confident manner. You cannot blow smoke out of your ass, nor you can have a lot of knowledge but also carry the crippling inability to work with other people in a team to produce a scientifically pertinent project. You must be both, and by sheer force of practice (and pragmatic inquiry) people learned.
I don't know about US schools nowadays, but internationally, US schools were characterized by this: showing things the practical way.
If you do not believe me, then Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions are, imho, a really good example of pragmatic philosophy. And his work is no "disaster". I find his work very reliable when teaching about evolution and progress on *many* subjects. Albeit elusive at times, the concept of a "paradigm" can work wonders and I also see that one as a solid example of pragmatic philosophy.
@@nelsonhernandez3259 You must not be familiar with John dewey's schools. He was entirely AGAINST practice.
Pragmatism is anathema to philosophy 😂. Is an anti-philosophical attitude parading as a philosophy. Which itself relies on pragmatism to be accepted as a philosophy. There is really nothing more anti philosophical than to just go with it and dont think about it too much. 😂 what are you at the wrong club? 😂
you always post when i feel ready to study philosophy at night.
Another amazingly lucid presentation. Thank you!
Love the quality of your videos and content --thumbs up!
Have you/would you be interested in covering British Pragmatism following from Ramsey and onwards?
Hi professor, could you extend the discussion to include George Herbert Mead?
Good idea!
@@PhiloofAlexandria looking forward to it! As a sociology student I always want to know why Mead is seen as a pragmatist
We need some pragmaticism today!
Lucid and practical .
@Daniel Bonevac which books and papers did you use as sources for this video lecture?
Mostly “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,” but also other writings of Peirce. My interpretation has also been influenced by Kevin Kelly’s work on inductive methodologies.
If you are looking for a good book on pragmatism Cheryl Misak "The American Pragmatists" is excellent and fun to read.
Thank you, Dr. Bonevac. Very lucid and clear.
There is a difference in meaning, but no difference in meaningfulness, whether or not God's properties are essentially identical or distinct.
Obviously, there is a difference in conceptual meaning, otherwise no controversy would arise in the first place as to which conception of God is true.
However, so long as all the properties are the same set of properties in both conceptions, there is no difference in the meaningfulness of these conceptions for our lives.
The fundamental mistake of Pragmatism is to confound conceptual meaning with practical meaningfulness.
Nice lecture ! Thanks 😊
Detailed and Well explained lecture 👏
Is the difference between purse and Hegel that Purse was content with what he had, providing it remained true?
A major difference is in the principles governing the dynamics. For Hegel, it is rather mysterious laws of the unfolding of Spirit. For Perice, it's scientific method. Also, Hegel is committed to Spirit as a thing; I don't see Peirce as committed to any underlying metaphysical unity.
Libertarian philosopher
There are no facts, only (dubiously) stable beliefs.
You are confusing issues. Science consists in the method, that is method of searching for infallibility.