실용주의 Pragmatism
실용주의 Pragmatism
미국의 철학자 찰스 샌더스 퍼스와 윌리엄 제임스가 시작한 철학의 한 분야. 제임스가 실용주의라는 용어를 고안한 것으로 여겨지지만, 제임스 자신은 그것이 퍼스에게서 왔다고 말했다. 실용주의의 특징은 사물의 본성이 아닌 작동 원리에 관심을 두고 사고의 실행 방식으로서 신념(우리가 그것을 증명할 길이 없을 때라도)을 전면화한 데 있다. 실용주의는 인간이, 아니 모든 유기체가 그들의 환경에 정신적으로 적응하는 방식 그리고 개념을 정교화해 환경과 실천의 우호적인 관계를 창조하는 방식에 관심을 둔다.
뷰캐넌, 이안(저), 윤민정·이선주(역), "실용주의",
「교양인을 위한 인문학 사전」, 자음과모음, p.364.
프래그머티즘 Pragmatism
제임스(W. James), 듀이(J. Dewey), 보다 최근의 로티 연구까지 포함하는 미국의 철학적 전통이다. 프래그머티즘은 체계에 대해 철저하게 우연성의 관점을 취하는데, 그러한 관점에는 진리는 사회적 실천에 의해 실현되며 진보는 시행착오적인 실험주의에 근거한 회고적 가치판단이다. 여기서 모든 문제는 행위의 문제이며 모든 판단은 가치에 대한 암묵적인 평가이다.
프래그머티즘은 언어가 독립적인 객관세계와 일치하는 방식으로 세계를 재현할 수 있다고 생각하지 않는 반재현주의의 한 형태이다. 이는 현실이라는 큰 덩어리에 일치하거나 혹은 그에 상응하는 언어는 없다는 주장이다. 무엇보다도 세계와 재현 간의 일치성에 관한 보편적 '진리'를 증명할 수 있는 아르키메데스적인 절대적 관점은 존재하지 않는다. 이러한 주장을 따르는 반재현주의는 보편적 진리라는 수단을 통해 우리의 행동과 신념의 토대를 삼거나 그것을 정당화할 수 없음을 암시한다. 우리는 이러저러한 담론, 언어의 덩어리를 다소 유용한 것 그리고 어느정도 바람직한 결과를 가져다주는 것으로 설명할 수는 있다. 하지만 우리는 독립적인 객관세계와의 일치성 면에서는 진실이라고 주장할 수 없다.
로티에게 언어의 우연성은 개인이 알고 있는 신념과 태도가 우연한 것이며 다른 것이 될 수도 있었다는 사고를 고수하는, 즉 그러한 신념과 태도는 어떠한 보편적 토대도 갖지 않다는 역설로 우리를 인도한다. 어떠한 초월적 진리도 초월적인 신도 이 질문에 대답해 줄 수 없기 때문에, 이는 또한 우리가 어떤 인간이 되고자 하는가에 대해 자문하게 만든다. 여기에는 개인으로서의 우리에 관한 질문(우리는 어떤 사람이 되고자 하는가)도 포함된다. 이 질문은 정치적 가치로 응답하기를 요하는 실용적 질문이지, 형이상학적이거나 인식론적 사안이 아니다.
이러한 논쟁은 보편적 진리 탐구에서 명분 부여의 정당화로 우리의 관심을 돌려놓는다. 이러한 명분 제공은 하나의 사회적 실천이며, 따라서 하나의 신념을 정당화하는 것은 하나의 전통과 공동체의 맥락에서 명분을 제공하는 것이다. 여기서 명분은 명분 제공을 위한 공동체의 규범 내에 간주관적인 토대를 가지고 있으며, 실천에 의해 인정받아 온 주장에 대한 동의를 지향하는 경향이 있다. 우리는 '진리'란 우리와 다른 사람 간의 진행 중인 대화 이상의 어떤 신뢰할 만한 근거도 부여할 수 없는 것이 그 특성이라고 설명한다.
프래그머티즘을 옹호하는 동시대 주요 인물인 로티는 그렇게 불리는 것과 종종 거리를 두고자 했음에도 불구하고 자주 포스트모던 철학자로 불렸다. 그러나 포스트모더니즘과 마찬가지로 프래그머티즘은 료타르의 '매타서사를 향한 불신'에 동조하면서 '거대 이론'에 반대한다. 하지만 이것이 모든 이론은 폐기되어야 한다는 것을 의미하지는 않으며, 오히려 국소 이론이 세계를 규범적인 방식으로 재묘사하는 하나의 방법이 됨을 의미한다.
프래그머티즘은 우주를 늘 '창조되고 있는 상태'로 이해하기 때문에 미래는 윤리적인 중요성을 가지며, 따라서 우리는 다른 것을 만들어낼 수 있으며 새로운 '더 나은' 미래들을 창조할 수 있다고 주장한다. 여기서 프래그머티즘은 '윤리적 자연주의'의 한 형태를 포함하며, 그것을 통해 윤리는 정당화되기 위해 형이상학적 토대를 필요로 하지 않는, 즉 윤리는 우리의 신념과 욕망 외부 혹은 그 너머에 존재하는 어떤 것에 토대를 둘 것을 요구하지 않는다. 이러한 점에서 프래그머티즘은 과거의 인과적인 이야기를 인지함에도 불구하고, 인간 행위의 환원 불가능성을 주장한다. 프래그머티즘은 사회와 문화의 변동이 '보증 없는 정치'의 문제라는 관점을 포스트구조주의, 포스트마르크스주의와 공유한다. 즉 정치는 소규모 실험주의, 가치 몰입, 실천적 행동에 집중하며 역시나 인간 행동의 보편적인 '법칙들'에 집중하지는 않는다.
철학으로서 프래그머티즘은 특정한 정치적 입장을 필수적으로 지지하지는 않다. 그러나 로티의 정치는 특수한 경우에 그가 반복적으로 스스로를 '좌파'로 묘사해 왔지만, 넓은 의미에서 '자유주의'의 정치이다. 로티에게 자유주의의 희망은 그들이 적합하다고 생각하는 대로 삶을 살아갈 인간 기회의 극대화를 위해 노력하면서, 인간 존재가 보다 자유롭고, 덜 비참하고, 보다 한가로우며 재화와 경험 면에서 보다 부유해지는 방법을 발견하는 것이다. 즉 다른 사람에게 고통을 주지 않으면서 자신의 가치와 신념에 근거한 사적인 프로젝트를 추구하는 것이다. 자유민주주의와 문화적 다원주의는불완전하게 작동되기 때문에 로티적 자유주의자들은 자유를 제한하고 우리 사회와 문화가 고통을 야기하는 측면에 대한 비판을 전적으로 수용한다.
바커, 크리스(저), 이경숙·정영희(역), 2009, "프래그머티즘",
「문화연구사전」, 커뮤니케이션북스, pp. 361~364.
제임스, 프래그머티즘 : 유용한가 유용하지 않은가, 이것이 문제다
퍼스에 의해 제창된 프래그머티즘을 제임스는 과학적 탐구에 한정하지 않고 구체적인 경험세계까지 확장했으나, 그 당시 제임스의 사상에 큰 영향을 끼친 것은 다윈의 진화론이었다.
당시의 진화론은 자연도태설, 즉 그 환경에 가장 유리한(적합한) 개체(생물)가 자손을 남긴다고 하는 적자생존설을 취하고 있다. 자연도태설에 의하면, 생물에게 가장 중요한 것은 환경에 적응하는 것이다.
제임스는 이 적자생존을 인간의 이해에 응용했다. 즉 생존에 도움을 주는 것이 인간에게 진정한 가치가 있는 것이라고 생각했다. 제임스는 이것을 사상과 관념에도 적용해, 사상의 목적은 행위를 올바르게 인도하는 것이라고 이해했다. 즉 인간은 과학과 종교 등의 이런저런 관념 속에서 살아가는데, 중요한 것은 그것이 어떤 결과를 초래하는가 하는 결과적 측면이라는 것이다.
거꾸로 어떤 관념이 아무런 결과도 초래하지 않는다면, 그 관념은 무의미하다. 어떤 관념이 올바르다고 하는 것은 그 관념이 실제적인 역할을 하는가, 하지 못하는가와 관련이 있으며, 영원불변의 진리란 존재하지 않는다. 진리의 내용은 그것을 구하는 시기와 장소와 목적 등에 의해 다른 것이 된다.
유럽의 합리론에서 진리란 인간의 인식작용과 외부세계와 일치를 의미한다. 인식은 세계 속의 사상을 '반영'하고 있으면 되는 것이다. 즉 인식은 어디까지나 수동적이다.
이에 반해 제임스는, 인식과 사상은 인간이 직면한 문제와 필요를 해결하기 위한 것이라고 주장했다. 절대적 보편타당성에 의해 문제를 해결하려고 하는 입장 대신에 구체적인 경험에 호소하는 방법을 탐구했던 것이다.
제임스는 그의 저서 「프래그머티즘」에서, "프래그머티즘은 어떤 것을 받아들이며, 논리에 따르기도 하지만 감각에도 의존하며, 가장 비근한 개인적인 경험까지도 고려하고 있다. 신비적인 경험이라도 그것이 실제적인 효과를 갖고 있는 경우에는 이것을 고려할 것이다"라고 서술하고 있다. 신비적 체험이나 종교적 신념도 그것이 현실적인 효과를 갖고 있다면 가치가 있다고 다루고 있는 것이다.
특히 그는 「근본적 경험론」에서 다원적 우주론을 논하면서, 절대적인 것을 가지고 세계의 전부를 설명하려는 헤겔적인 일원론적 세계관과는 다른 견해를 주장했다.
이렇게 제임스는, 인간 인식의 타당성을 판단하는 근거가 이성과 절대정신 같은 뭔가 단일한 능력에서 찾아지는 것이 아니라, 다원적인 경험적 가치판단에 의해 한 사람 한 사람이 선택해야 하는 것이라고 설명했다.
*제임스 William James 1842~1910 미국의 철학자, 심리학자, 프래그머티즘을 사상적으로 크게 발전시켰다. (동생 헨리 제임스는 소설가.) 하버드대학에서 화학을 전공했고, 뒤에 의학을 공부했다. 1873년부터 하버드대학에서 생리학, 80년 이후로는 심리학과 철학을 가르쳤다. 저서로는 「심리학원론」, 「프래그머티즘」, 「근본적 경험론」 등이 있다.
**일원론적 세계관(monomism) : 세계의 성립을 단지 하나의 원리로 설명하는 철학적·종교적 이론. 이에 반해 둘 이상의 상호독립적인 원리에 의해 세계의 성립을 설명하는 이론을 다원론(Pluralism)이라 한다.
발리스 듀스(저), 남도현(역), 2002, "제임스, 프래그머티즘: 유용한가 유용하지 않은가, 이것이 문제다",
「그림으로 이해하는 현대사상」, 개마고원, pp.137~139.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a philosophical school of American origin, generally and internationally acknowledged as a genuine American contribution to the world philosophical heritage (the word “pragmatism”has its origin in the Greek “pragma”—“action,” “affair”). It reflects the broader American social experience and cultural context with its roots in Puritan theology, with Calvinistic ethics of hard work in the precariousness of frontier life,with a desire for success in the New World experiment, with the encouragement of inventiveness,and a practical sense of making the ideal of good life work,and so on,having provided the necessary, though not sufficient, background for emerging such a philosophy.The first tenets of pragmatist thought sprang from seminal discussions of the Metaphysical Club in the academic milieu of Cambridge, MA, in the 1870s.This narrow circle of various scholars included polymath Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), psychologist William James (1842–1910), mathematician Chauncey Wright (1830–1875), historian John Fiske (1842–1901),Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,Jr.(1841–1935), philosopher Francis Ellingwood Abbot (1836–1903), and Nicholas St. John Green (1830– 1876). However, Peirce and James as renowned progenitors of pragmatism were modest enough to mention several non-American predecessors (such as the Greek schools of Sophists and Skeptics, F. Bacon, G. Berkeley, A. Schopenhauer, J. S. Mill, A. Bain, Ch. Darwin, and, notably, I. Kant.), who provided similar ideas and attitudes,such as an evolutionary approach to nature, life, and reason, theory of the practical and inferential nature of knowledge, the purposive character of belief,and the role of will and desire in forming belief.Based on the integration of these concepts, Peirce established the principle of pragmatism in his 1878 paper, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,” as follows: “Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” This principle was intended to serve as the method of finding the meaning and testing the truth and value of scientific concepts and theories and as providing an objective criterion for an empirical (experimental and observational) scientific practice (owing to which pragmatism is, improperly, identified with positivism). Twenty years later Pierce’s colleague, James, in a lecture titled “Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results,” and delivered at the University of California in 1898, modified and subsequently popularized this principle, while crediting Peirce as the father of pragmatism, as follows: “The ultimate test for us of what a truth means is indeed the conduct it dictates or inspires.”Pragmatism,according to James, is not only a “a new name for some old ways of thinking”but much more a “temper of mind,an attitude;it is also a theory of the nature of ideas and truth; and finally, it is a theory about reality.” To this extending of the principle to human practical life and action in general, Peirce reacted with disgust and suggested rather to label his conception as “pragmatism,” a “term ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.” The move, made by James, had meant for Peirce the departure from objectivity to subjectivity and from science to religion. Whereas Peirce felt it important to find a method of true science, James believed that human happiness was important. James’s project was to show that truth is a much broader concept that extends the lines of science and relates to human life and action not only as an epistemological ideal but also as a practical value and need. Thus, science and religion are both legitimate endeavors in human life, while both have different purposes. Pragmatism appreciates science but is by no means a scientism. It makes substantial room for human values, ethics, education, and social life. Roughly at the same time, in the late 1890s, John Dewey (1859–1952), who was partially inspired by both Peirce and James and partially influenced by Hegel and Darwin, accomplished definitely the move in the same direction by forming his experimental school at Chicago and formulating his “instrumentalism.” Dewey regarded science as important but only a fraction of the human process of inquiry.He believed that science is being developed and corrected in the name of human happiness. The value of science is subordinated to the values of life, which are of a communal nature.By collaborating with Dewey,the trio of the founding fathers of pragmatism had been completed and the three versions of classical pragmatism formed: scientific/methodological,which incorporates logic and semiotics as the theory of signs and language (Peirce); psychological/humanistic, which incorporates ethic and religious belief (James); and social/political, which incorporates culture and education (Dewey). Thus pragmatism provides and develops the relationship of philosophy to these three important areas: science and knowledge, life and action,community and democracy.
The philosophy of pragmatism in general is multifaceted. However, it can be characterized by several key attitudes.It never has been,nor was it intended to be, a unified doctrine (while critics have accused it, improperly,of eclecticism).Rather it has been searching for the sort of“third”way in philosophy: between materialism and idealism in ontology and rationalism and empiricism in epistemology. This has brought up the pragmatist opposition to traditional theory of knowledge and truth,now labeled as anti-representationalism and anti-foundationalism. The concept of the world in itself for us is not valid; there is just the world as we see it through our needs and goals. Humans, both within and without philosophy, provide the descriptions of the world that suit our intentions one way or another. Therefore, the pragmatist fundamental philosophical intention from the onset has been the “reconstruction in philosophy,”as Dewey called it, directed against the main European streams of thought such as Platonism, Cartesianism, and Kantianism. However, it may best be described, in a sense, as “Anti-Philosophy,”I (i.e., anti-dualism comprising the reworking of all substantial traditional philosophical oppositions such as subject-object, mind-world, theory-practice, morality-prudence, individual-society,science-religion,etc.) into a coherent and contextual conception formed from the viewpoint of philosophical anthropology based on the sense of, and orientation to, the gradual betterment of human practical life (owing to which interpreters have identified it, falsely, with Marxism). Simply, philosophy should change its topics and orientations in order to be renewed and keep itself alive and relevant within the culture. Because the platonic quests for absolutes, certainty and eternal principles are as self-deceptive as futile; philosophy should be the critical public discourse aimed at,as Dewey stated, solving the “problems of men and women” and, as Rorty added,an edifying conversation.
Pragmatism is an open, anti-dogmatic, pluralistic, and practice-oriented philosophy (while critics have accused it, improperly again, of typically American success-oriented and pay-off doctrine). The idea that the practical consequences pay (owing to which interpreters have identified it,falsely again,with utilitarianism) has become the pragmatist standard for evaluating the truth, meaning, and value—these are taken as equivalent to the practical, empirical consequences derivable from them and should be judged according to what they mean practically for humans and their lives. By “practical,” pragmatism does not understand the “bread and butter”consequences, but the empirical, experiential, particular, and concrete, and includes also such considerations as logical consistency, intellectual satisfaction, and harmony of mental content. If these do not affect human life, experience,and action,they are supposed to bear only a very restricted and dubious meaning. The idea “works,” if its consequences fulfill our expectations and goals,i.e.,if it brings satisfaction to us.The function of the mental (thought, inquiry, experience) is not theoretical but practical—it consists not in providing knowledge as such, but knowledge, thought, and feeling as a presupposition to better action. Pragmatism has emphasized the “plastic” nature of reality and the practical function of knowledge as an instrument for adapting to reality and controlling it. Pragmatism stresses live, dynamic experience over fixed principles.To think as a pragmatist is to consider the consequences, to imagine the definite differences that follow from each alternative,and to decide in that way which of the two “works” better. The alternative, which works better,is true.
The most contested aspect of pragmatist philosophy has been its conception of truth. In opposition to traditional epistemologies, which take truth as a representation of reality in our cognition “as it is in itself” and regard it as an epistemic goal “for itself,” the pragmatist approach to truth is Darwinian, or “functional,” or “instrumentalist.” Truth is a nonepistemological, practical value, and a means rather than an end. First, it is highly dubious that humans have a privileged capacity to attain such a representation of reality that corresponds to it as a true copy; second, humans make use of their representations of reality they dub as truth—and even of all representations—in order to achieve their practical ends. The human mind works in a truly Darwinian mode: it is permanently providing the selections of all representations of its content so that it is able to select those that can best serve all various kinds of purposes that human beings can pursue. Such a selection is naturally fallible and corrigible; as such, the concept of a truth that is applicable to all kinds of human condition and situation cannot be. Thus there is no static truth, much less absolute truth; there are truths, and these are constantly being made true. There are no necessary truths or axioms; there are only postulates. Truth has no metaphysical or transcendental essence; it is fully the outcome of human inquiry, which includes both thought and experience, and is a critical, self-corrective social process. There is no other warrant of truth apart from this inquiry.
The significance of pragmatist philosophy for anthropology in particular can be seen to consist in several specific ways of answering the question: “What does it mean to be human?” First, being human is regarded as the self-image of humanity based on naturalism, evolutionism, and holism. By taking Darwinism seriously, pragmatism asserts the continuity of nature with culture, of natural and cultural evolution in the sense that humans practice the same as animals do, only in a different way and on a different level. Even if the purposes of both kinds of evolution are the same, to adapt to environment, humans maintain their lives via thought and intelligent action. Even such a unique phenomenon as human language is primarily a tool for coping with the world and coordinating human action.Due to this, human adaptations are much more dynamic and creative in comparison to all other nature.Humans adapt nature to their needs rather than simply adapting to it. The limits of human adaptive/transformational power seem to be almost unrestricted; the pragmatist conception of “meliorism” stems from this power (i.e.,the idea that humans are able to cope,despite the fact that it is sometimes difficult, with the problems of their existence).It is also the self-image of humanity based on socio-cultural constructionism. Certain human creations have not and could not have preexisted culture and society, (e.g., according to James and Dewey this is the human self). Human power is self-transformational and via creating culture we create ourselves. Individual and social developments cannot be in any way separated from each other. The task, however, is not only to attempt self-creation of an individual, but at the same time attempt creation of a democratic and communicative cultural community. The creation of such a community means the most we humans can accomplish; it is the creation of our truly intelligent and social home environment. However, the creation of such a community is not to be taken as “the goal of human history.”It is the result of our free choice rather than of any kind of inner or outer necessity, and it can be achieved only thanks to our intelligent efforts. This amounts to the assertion that there hardly can be such concepts as the universal and stable human nature. From the broadest ethical and political points of view, humans are bequeathed to ourselves, and we are the only agents responsible for what we have,and shall become.There is no other authority residing above us to direct our human evolution and destiny. Humanity must form its values and decide to act on behalf of them. Thus, if we are to speak of any kind of “human nature,” according to pragmatism, this should consist in the intelligent and democratic creation of opportunities for better human action and satisfaction in life.
The pragmatist school has exerted influence,which has shown its peak in the first two decades of the 20th century even across the border of the United States, and is impacting the fields of law,education,political and social theory, art, and religion. Apart from resolute critics such as B. Russell and G. E. Moore from Cambridge,England,one of the most original followers of pragmatist thought is Oxford’s Ferdinand C. S. Schiller (1864–1937), who titled his own version of pragmatism “humanism.”Pragmatist philosophy had also been spread over such countries as France and Italy and even China and Japan, with protagonists including Ch. Renouvier, H. Poincaré, M. Blondel, É. Le Roy, H. Bergson, G. Papini, G. Vailati, and M.Calderoni.However,with the demise of both James and Peirce, the movement slowed a gradual decline, and it was Dewey who had remained its almost single recognized spokesman in the first half of the 20th century. On the American side it was replaced by logical positivism and analytic philosophy of language.Nonetheless,it can be proved that pragmatism has never completely faded out and in American universities there always have been academics representing it (for example,J.Royce,C.S.Morris,C.I.Lewis, S. Hook). In the 1950s even the leading logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap (1891–1970) and Willard V.O.Quine (1908–2000) started to recognize pragmatism’s importance, which has been featured in their own doctrines. Similarly, the progenitor of analytic philosophy, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889– 1953), in the whole later stage of his career had espoused ideas and attitudes similar to those of pragmatism.Thus the soil could have been prepared during the 1960s and 1970s for the “pragmatist turn” in Western philosophy,strongly inaugurated by Richard Rorty (1931–) with his salvo in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979) and later confirmed in The Consequences of Pragmatism (1982) and other writings. This revived version of pragmatism (neopragmatism) has also been enriched by some influences of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Gadamer,Sartre,and Derrida.Thus,toward the turn of the millennia, we have witnessed the resurgence of pragmatism represented not only by Rortian “post-analytic neo-pragmatists,” but also by many versions of “neoclassical pragmatism,” such as “NeoPercean,”“Neo-Jamesian,”and “Neo-Deweyan”associated with the whole range of contemporary American philosophers. Moreover, pragmatism has become a broader international philosophical movement, which includes, apart from such important figures as Jurgen Habermas (1929–) and Karl-Otto Apel (1922), many more followers and students worldwide.
Further Readings
Dickstein, M.(Ed.). (1998). The revival of pragmatism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Diggins, J.P.(1994). The promise of pragmatism: Modernism and the crisis of knowledge and authority. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
James, W.(1979). Pragmatism and the meaning of truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Menand, L.(2002). The metaphysical club. London: Flamingo.
Murphy, J.P.(1990). Pragmatism from Peirce to Davidson. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Peirce, C.S.(1934). Pragmatism and pragmaticism.
C.Hartshorne & P.Weiss(Eds.). Collected Papers(Vol.5). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, H.(1987). The many faces of pragmatism. La Salle,IL: Open Court.
Rorty, R.(1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Smith, J.E.(1984). Purpose and thought: The meaning of pragmatism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
West, C.(1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Emil Visnovsky, 2006, "Pragmatism", H. James Birx(ed.),
Encyclopedia of Anthropology, Sage, pp.1924~1927.