James

James talks about the pragmatic method as “settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable,” which fits in well with the transcendental movement in American at the time. It appears quite simple in the manner James explains it to be in reference to the ideas of the world and to use it as “to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practice consequences.” Because this approach is so practical it is hard to believe it did not come into an identity with all of the great thinkers and philosopher of the past until Peirce. I think this really underlines exactly how different the pragmatic school of thought was from those that predated it.

The idea is to create a firm basis for our reality so that we can reach a conclusion about the world that makes sense (or doesn’t). This pragmatic use of reasoning is instrumental in disregarding notions that fail to achieve a sense of reality. In addition, creating this pragmatic foundation helps eliminate ideas that previously might have been confusing. James speaks of pragmatism as a “universal mission,” which might be a stretch but certain does help one in separating a “real” reality from one that is false. By disregarding those things that do not align into the pragmatic mold, an individual is better equipped to deal with what is concrete.

There is no better field, in my opinion, to apply this method to than the study of the universe. Although this perhaps might be a very broad generalization, for does not most of what people believe come from what they experience while living in said universe? Nonetheless, it is a very “move forward” approach” because it allows a clear focus on what is practically deem able as real.

Using James’ idea of the method followed by the genetic theory of what is meant by truth creates a very understandable way to achieve any pragmatic goals. Being able to create absolute goals and ideas helps lay the first brick in establishing a house, and it appears it is the goal of this school of thought to do such.