프라그마틱 데모 and the Illegal
Pragmatism is a normative and descriptive theory. As a description theory it argues that the classical conception of jurisprudence isn't true and that a legal pragmatics is a better option.
In particular the area of legal pragmatism, it rejects the idea that correct decisions can be deduced from some core principle or set of principles. It favors a practical approach that is based on context.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that emerged during the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was the first fully North American philosophical movement (though it should be noted that there were followers of the later-developing existentialism who were also referred to as "pragmatists"). Like several other major movements in the history of philosophy the pragmaticists were influenced by a discontent with the state of things in the world and the past.
In terms of what pragmatism really is, it's difficult to pin down a concrete definition. Pragmatism is typically focused on outcomes and results. This is often contrasted with other philosophical traditions that take a more theoretical approach to truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been credited as the founder of the philosophy of pragmatism. He believed that only things that can be independently tested and proved by practical tests is true or authentic. Peirce also emphasized that the only method to comprehend the truth of something was to study its effects on others.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 to 1952, was another pioneering pragmatist. He developed an approach that was more holistic to pragmatism that included connections with society, education and art, as well as politics. He was inspired by Peirce and also took inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatics also had a more loosely defined view of what constitutes truth. This was not intended to be a realism, but an attempt to attain greater clarity and firmly-justified settled beliefs. This was achieved by the combination of practical knowledge and solid reasoning.
프라그마틱 데모 extended this neopragmatic method to be described more broadly as internal realists. This was an alternative to correspondence theories of truth that did away with the goal of achieving an external God's eye point of view while retaining truth's objectivity, albeit inside a theory or description. It was a similar idea to the theories of Peirce, James and Dewey however with more sophisticated formulation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist who is a lawyer sees law as a process of problem-solving, not a set of predetermined rules. This is why he rejects the classical picture of deductive certainty, and instead emphasizes context as a crucial element in decision-making. Legal pragmatists also argue that the idea of fundamental principles is a misguided idea since, in general, such principles will be outgrown by the actual application. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is superior to a traditional conception of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist outlook is very broad and has given birth to a myriad of theories in ethics, philosophy and sociology, science, and political theory. Although Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism, and his pragmatic maxim - a guideline for defining the meaning of hypotheses by exploring their practical implications - is its central core but the concept has since expanded significantly to encompass a wide range of views. This includes the notion that the truth of a philosophical theory is if and only if it has practical effects, the notion that knowledge is primarily a transacting with rather than a representation of nature, and the notion that language is a deep bed of shared practices that can't be fully expressed.
Although the pragmatics have contributed to a variety of areas of philosophy, they're not without their critics. The pragmatists rejecting a priori propositional knowlege has resulted in a ferocious and influential critique of analytical philosophy. This critique has reverberated far beyond philosophy into diverse social disciplines, including the fields of jurisprudence, political science, and a host of other social sciences.
It isn't easy to classify the pragmatist approach to law as a description theory. Most judges make decisions based on a logical-empirical framework, which is heavily based on precedents and conventional legal documents. However an expert in the field of law may be able to argue that this model doesn't adequately capture the real dynamics of judicial decision-making. It is more appropriate to think of a pragmatist approach to law as a normative model which provides a guideline on how law should evolve and be interpreted.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is an ancient philosophical tradition that regards the world's knowledge and agency as inseparable. It has drawn a wide and sometimes contradictory variety of interpretations. It is sometimes seen as a reaction against analytic philosophy, while at other times it is regarded as an alternative to continental thought. It is a growing and evolving tradition.
The pragmatists wanted to emphasize the importance of individual consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They also wanted to correct what they believed to be the mistakes of an outdated philosophical heritage that had distorted earlier thinkers' work. These errors included Cartesianism as well as Nominalism, as well as a misunderstanding of the role of human reasoning.
All pragmatists are skeptical of non-experimental and unquestioned images of reasoning. They are therefore cautious of any argument that asserts that 'it works' or 'we have always done this way' are valid. For the legal pragmatist these statements could be interpreted as being excessively legalistic, uninformed and uncritical of previous practice.
In contrast to the classical idea of law as a system of deductivist principles, the pragmaticist will stress the importance of the context of legal decision-making. It will also acknowledge that there are a variety of ways to describe the law and that the diversity should be respected. This perspective, also known as perspectivalism, can make the legal pragmatist appear less respectful to precedent and previously accepted analogies.
The view of the legal pragmatist recognizes that judges do not have access to a basic set of rules from which they could make well-thought-out decisions in all instances. The pragmatist therefore wants to emphasize the importance of knowing the facts before making a final decision, and is willing to modify a legal rule when it isn't working.
There is no agreed definition of what a pragmatist in the legal field should be, there are certain features that define this stance on philosophy. This includes an emphasis on the context, and a reluctance to any attempt to derive laws from abstract principles that are not directly testable in specific instances. Additionally, the pragmatic will recognise that the law is constantly changing and there will be no one correct interpretation of it.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
As a theory of judicial procedure, legal pragmatics has been praised as a method to effect social changes. It has been criticized for relegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to the realm of legal decision-making. The pragmatic is not interested in relegating philosophical debates to the legal realm. Instead, he prefers an open-ended and pragmatic approach, and acknowledges that different perspectives are inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists oppose the idea of a foundationalist approach to legal decision-making and instead, rely on conventional legal sources to decide current cases. They believe that the cases aren't enough to provide a solid basis for properly analyzing legal conclusions. Therefore, they have to add additional sources, such as analogies or principles derived from precedent.
The legal pragmatist also rejects the notion that right decisions can be determined from some overarching set of fundamental principles and argues that such a scenario would make judges too easy to base their decisions on predetermined "rules." Instead she advocates a system that recognizes the inexorable influence of context.
In light of the skepticism and anti-realism that characterize the neo-pragmatists, many have adopted a more deflationist position toward the concept of truth. They tend to argue, focusing on the way a concept is applied in describing its meaning, and creating criteria that can be used to recognize that a particular concept has this function that this is all philosophers should reasonably expect from the truth theory.
Other pragmatists, however, have taken a much broader approach to truth, which they have called an objective standard for asserting and questioning. This approach combines elements of pragmatism, classical realist, and Idealist philosophy. It is also in line with the larger pragmatic tradition, which sees truth as a definite standard for inquiry and assertion, not just a standard of justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This more holistic conception of truth is referred to as an "instrumental" theory of truth, as it is a search for truth to be defined in terms of the aims and values that determine the way a person interacts with the world.