Extending the Pragmatist Tradition: Replies to Commentators

Abstract

Philip Kitcher I want to begin by thanking Judith Green for organizing this symposium, and all the contributors for their thoughtful attention to my work. Pragmatism is currently undergoing an apparent revival, with a number of philosophers not normally associated with the movement claiming to have joined the club: following the lead of Dick Rorty, Isaac Levi, and Hilary Putnam, Robert Brandom and Huw Price have also declared their pragmatist allegiance. I, too, have signed on. But, as Seth Joshua Thomas astutely notes in his essay, should those who have labored long and hard during times when the writings of Peirce, James, and Dewey were neglected (and often brusquely dismissed) take these selfascriptions seriously? After all, none of us newcomers has anything like the depth of understanding of the pragmatist canon exhibited by many distinguished scholars— people like Richard Bernstein, Larry Hickman, Christopher Hookway, Cheryl Misak, and Ruth Anna Putnam. Neopragmatism is inspired by particular themes in the writings of Peirce, James, and Dewey, and aims to extend the pragmatist tradition by developing those themes in the context of contemporary philosophical discussions. That context might draw on ideas in Anglophone philosophy—as Brandom integrates pragmatist insights with recent views about meaning—or it might use the writings of the classical pragmatists to elaborate European approaches to social philosophy (as with Jurgen Habermas and Axel Honneth), or it might borrow eclectically from various philosophical traditions and from the circumstances of life today to launch philosophical inquiry in new directions. A personal neopragmatist confession: I care less about whether my readings