Old paper: 4

Ranen Erdahl
Assessment of Modern Philosophy
3/9/17

That modern philosophy needs to change its direction is one of the few things one could get Delacampagne and Kitcher to agree on, if one could ever get them to have a dialogue. Delacampagne would say that the failures of philosophy have run their course, and it is time to find something else for humanity to look to improve itself. Kitcher, being more optimistic about philosophy’s chances, would argue that it was not philosophy that failed, but the current application of philosophy that failed. And while Delacampagne may concede that the philosophy of pragmatism is capable of advancing human knowledge, he would find the claim the humans are capable of such a philosophy questionable, at best. The many examples he could point to would not be easily refuted by Kitcher, but it would not be an impossible challenge. Kitcher might find his victory in those that were capable of doing pragmatism. That alone would not offer much to Delacampagne, when there are examples such as the Vienna Circle, which fail to do what pragmatism now attempts.  Kitcher however, would be able to demonstrate that, at least for a time, the Vienna Circle was capable of doing pragmatic thinking, but ultimately failed to do so. Conceded by Kitcher then, would be the point that while humans are capable of pragmatic tendencies they have not always acted upon them. To Delacampagne the question that emerges for this is obvious. What then will persuade humanity to both move and stay in a pragmatic direction? Kitcher himself may not have an answer, but I think he would find one in the individualism of Dewey and James. The arguments that would be put forth by Delacampagne hold some truth to them, but are ultimately too concern with how philosophy failed. Kitcher’s aim is to looked at what about philosophy failed and why, and this provides him with a stronger conclusion than Delacampagne can come to. Overall the pragmatism provided by Kitcher and those he cites has the ability to address the arguments put forth by Delacampagne.

The first argument put forth by Delacampagne for the abandonment of philosophy is its inability to prevent the two largest wars from happening. As he says in A History of Philosophy “These things were all the more painful as this was a war that could have been avoided.” (61)  This was the result of the twentieth century’s quests for truth, and it is the primary reason Delacampagne says that their philosophy failed. And, in many ways, Kitcher would agree, but he is not willing to abandon his hope for philosophy just yet. Kitcher would point to the philosophies of James and Dewey as examples of a philosophy that would address Delacampagne’s problems with what he calls the “kantian dream.” The pragmatic philosophy, of James and Dewey, advocates for the abandonment of analytical philosophy, which so troubles Delacampagne, and seeks to return to a more classical philosophy. This philosophy is not concerned with what is true, but rather what is useful of as Kitcher puts it his book.  “Philosophical questions need to be assessed for their significance… that are made to human lives” (4). This is a view of philosophical questions that would address many of the problems Delacampagne has with the current direction of philosophy. It is a turn away from the intellectualism that failed the europeans while, at the same times, providing a way of gaining meaningful knowledge from the world.  By focusing on things that can be found useful within their time, pragmatism will be capable of addressing the philosophical problems the matter. Rather than distinct itself from human emotion as the enlightenment did, pragmatism took steps back to a more classical direction by tackling the problem affecting human lives. And in this way Delacampagne might see some hope for philosophy, but would be greatly skeptical of humanity's ability to be pragmatists. Delacampagne would point to those who, even now, cling to the kantian dream despite all of its past failings. He would hold to the position that even if pragmatisms is able to bring the important issue to proper focus it is not able to be put into proper practices. And while that point is not one Kitcher could wholly counter, it is also not wholly beyond rebuttal. There are those who have, and times in which humanity as a whole has been pragmatic.

The works of James, Dewey, and others has been gaining traction amongst the broader american public. While pragmatism is not without its detractors, its has also gained some prominent champions, Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam among them (Kitcher, 1). But to someone like Delacampagne, how many followers one gains means little unless it can promotes movement towards their philosophy. The most prominent example of this point is the Vienna Circle. The Vienna Circle was composed of members who were meant to be proud empiricists with the goal of moving away from Kant. In the end however, the circle fell apart after mixing it self proclaimed goal with the ideals of Kant once again. From this example Delacampagne would conclude that the same can and will happen to pragmatism, and philosophy will eventually direct itself toward Kant’s failures once again. But, as Kitcher would point out, some of the Circle’s most prominent members held major disagreements with the Kantian ideals that were adopted. After releasing the pamphlet which promoted the kantian dream was seldom mention within the Circle for reasons which Delacampagne highlights. The thesis of pamphlet was meant with widespread disagreement amongst the member of the Circle, and drew from interpretations that were challenges heavily by Wittgenstein (Delacampagne 103). To Kitcher this demonstrates that many members the Circle were capable of doing pragmatism, but would it admit their failure to do so. So the agreement that Delacampagne and Kitcher would most likely come to is that it is possible for humans to do pragmatism, but they do not always act upon their capacity to do it. What Delacampagne would next question then is how Kitcher plans to promote pragmatism when its capacity is limited by humans whims. While its is not an answer that Kitcher fully embraced, he may turn himself to the individualism of James and Dewey.

Kitcher has conceded that convincing everyday people as well as academic philosophers to adopt a pragmatic mindset is not an easy task. What he may look for then, is a set of ideals that would promote pragmatic practices, and he would find it in individualism. The individualism practices by both James and Dewey, while harboring some disagreements, leads them to focus on the questions that make a difference in their lives. These kinds of questions are the central questions asked by pragmatists, and would therefore leading to the kind of pragmatic thinking that Kitcher desires from them. By promoting the moral worth of the individual society is inherently driven away from finding a rigid social code, and more focus whether or not the differences made matter on an empirical level. The questions one is prompted by individualism drive them away from the rigid moral codes the Dewey calls into question, and more towards the philosophical problems of everyday human life. Kitcher summarize the goal of Dewey’s individualism as followed “ the challenge for each of us is to make appropriate use of what we have received, and to do what we can to refine and improve it.” (11). In other words, the goal of every individual is to find out what is useful and impactful to their lives, and that goal is the central ideal of pragmatism. So from the mindset of individualism follows the ideals of pragmatism, and the promotion of individuality would commit people to adopting the ideals of pragmatism. From this Kitcher can point to the many cultures that already place a small emphasis on the individual. and with this convince Delacampagne that simply by promoting an increasing the emphasis that the culture already place on individual, many cultures would inherently become more pragmatists. And by doing so Kitcher makes a compelling argument for both the ability of humans to do pragmatism, and how to improve upon that capacity.

The arguments put forth by Delacampagne and Kitcher are ones they would both find to be useful, important, and capable of making a difference in everyday life. But the arguments put forth by Delacampagne drives focus away from what about philosophy can be useful, and instead focuses on the failures of modern philosophy. Kitcher however, while in agreement that modern philosophy has failed, looks at those failures as an opportunity to improve those problems. Delacampagne claims that there is no philosophy which can truly improve people's lives, but Kitcher provides a philosophy which focuses on just such a premise. Delacampagne say that this kind of philosophy is not capable of being put into practice, but Kitcher demonstrates that many people have and are capable of said practices. Delacampagne then ask how one convinces others to move in a pragmatic direction, to which James and Dewey offer promoting the individualism that already exist in many parts of the world. Pragmatism offers a solution to the failures of modern philosophy that Delacampagne is concern with, and the additional challenges he puts forth are adequately met by Kitcher and others. Therefore the pragmatic philosophy of Kitcher addresses how modern philosophy can successfully move away from Delacampagne’s assessment of failure.