A Critique of Talisse and Aikin’s "Why Pragmatists Cannot Be Pluralists"

Abstract

in 2004, robert talisse and scott aikin created a bit of a firestorm when they attacked a sacred cow of contemporary pragmatism. At a meeting of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, Talisse and Aikin presented a paper in which they argued that pragmatists cannot be pluralists. A number of papers then appeared in the Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, responding to Talisse and Aikin. Some of the responses were quite hostile, such as the paper “You Talking to Me?” co-written by Michael Sullivan and John Lysaker. Others were more measured and reasoned, such as Cheryl Misak’s paper “Pragmatism and Pluralism.” Like these others, I aim to show that Talisse and Aikin are mistaken. However, I do think that Talisse and Aikin have presented an important challenge to pragmatists, and that pragmatists have at times perhaps endorsed pluralism a bit unreflectively. Thus, I think it is important for those of us who care about the pragmatist tradition to occasionally return to, consider, and critically engage what these authors have to say. Talisse and Aikin proceed via a “taxonomy” of both pragmatism and pluralism; they then go on to show that given their understanding of what pragmatism and pluralism are, pragmatism and pluralism are essentially incompatible. There is a problem, however, in that Talisse and Aikin have presupposed their conclusion in how they frame the discussion. Certainly if pragmatism and pluralism are exactly what Talisse and Aikin say they are, then they are in a certain sense incompatible. Yet Talisse and Aikin have not exhausted the great variety and various interpretations and understandings of both pragmatism and pluralism. Further, it would seem that there are some serious flaws in the argument that Talisse and Aikin put forward. Talisse and Aikin’s paper was extremely ambitious. By comparison, the aim of this paper is relatively modest. My purpose here is to show that Talisse