Pragmatism and Environment Essay ⋆ Environment Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Pragmatism and Environment Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Pragmatism as a school of philosophy arose in (and has remained for the most part confined to) North America in the late 19th century. Pragmatism’s most well-known and influential early theorists included Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead. Though not as well-known or widely appreciated internationally-or even within American academic philosophy-as many European philosophers, these “classical” American pragmatists continue to inform a diverse and evolving contemporary American pragmatism.

Perhaps most fundamentally, “all [pragmatists] agree in their rejection of foundationalist epistemology.” Pragmatist anti-foundationalism should not, however, be thought to reflect an antirealism or antinaturalism. The early pragmatists, particularly Peirce and Dewey, were intensely interested in theorizing the nature of scientific inquiry-in large part for the sake of the development of the practice(s) of natural science. For pragmatists, we must continue our scientific investigations into the “truths” of the world; but our explanations must proceed without recourse to a priori, unchanging “laws.” This emphasis on experience and experiment (and perhaps the near conflation of the two) “led James to call his philosophy ‘radical empiricism,'” according to Kelly Parker. All explanation is the product of experience, and experience has proven that our understandings of the world are nothing if not “fallible.”

The concept of “fallibilism”-originally theorized by Peirce-is also integral to pragmatism. Human beliefs are necessarily based in certain fundamental constructs. All such constructs-whether guiding natural science or social inquiry-are also necessarily fallible. We can never, in other words, assume that there is any transhistorical correctness underlying a particular concept of belief. Emphatically for pragmatists, however, this should not be construed to mean that no beliefs or constructs are correct or accurate. It is more that, as Larry Hickman puts it, “we may be able to get it [a belief or construct] better and better, truer and truer, but we never get it completely right” (emphasis added). “May” and “better” are primary qualifiers in this sentence. To anyone who would conflate the pragmatist optimism, inherent in this sentence, that “we may be able to get it…truer and truer,” with the Enlightenment “project” of the accumulation of knowledge increasingly nearing absolute Truth, it could be pointed out that we only ever know that we may be getting it truer. So there is a point in trying, a necessity for inquiry, to be sure, but it is unverifiable-and therefore a nonissue-to argue whether the development of any particular truth is approaching Truth. To staunch antimetaphysicalists (e.g., most poststructuralists) who might quarrel that “better and better, truer and truer,” still harbors an implication that there is a transhistorical end-state toward which we “think” we might be headed, the flat declaration that follows, that “we [know we] never get it completely right,” should sufficiently silence this charge.

Pragmatist anti-foundationalism and empiricism are thus based in a desire to explain and understand the world, but in a less epistemologically confident manner than as practiced within predominant modes of Western science.

Environmental Pragmatism

In 1996, Andrew Light and Eric Katz proposed a focused “environmental pragmatism” as a solution to a definable problem within environmental philosophy: its lack of practical influence on environmental science, activism, or policy. To remedy this perceived deficiency, they suggest that “the fruits of this philosophical enterprise should be directed toward the practical resolution of environmental problems.” Of particular concern to Light and Katz was the observation that environmental philosophy remained mired in a “theoretical dogmatism,” with the majority of environmental philosophers committed to the belief that only a nonanthropocentric environmental ethics “will yield a morally justifiable environmental philosophy.”

Philosophical and practical opposition to the moral monism that results from dogmatic nonanthropocentrism and theories of intrinsic value in nature is probably the broadest base of common ground between the contributing authors in Light and Katz’s 1996 edited collection Environmental Pragmatism, defining a subfield of environmental studies that has grown substantially in the decade since.

Bibliography:

Larry Hickman, “John Dewey’s Pragmatic Naturalism,” in Light and E. Katz, eds., Environmental Pragmatism (Routledge, 1996);
Andrew Light and Eric Katz, , Environmental Pragmatism (Routledge, 1996);
Ben Minteer, “Beyond Considerability: A Deweyan View of the Animal Rights-Environmental Ethics Debate,” in Erin McKenna and Andrew Light, , Animal Pragmatism: Rethinking Human-Nonhuman Relationships (Indiana University Press, 2004);
Kelly Parker, “Pragmatism and Environmental Thought,” in Light and E. Katz, eds., Environmental Pragmatism (Routledge, 1996);
S. Robert, “Wild Ontology: Elaborating Environmental Pragmatism,” Ethics and the Environment, (v.5, 2000).