This thread is intend to explain pragmatism. I will be posting some material about this philosophy, which can help the reader in understanding what Pragmatism is.
I will be much obliged, if someone makes any correction or expands the idea.

Intro:
A School of philosophy that believes that usability,workability and practability is more important for any idea, policy or concept than any other factor.
This idea became popular in early 20th century in United States and most of the policies of US were governed and design by this idea. Pragmatism is a result oriented philosophy, focusing on acheiveing/acquiring desired results.

First time this term was rolled by Charles S. Peirce, who is considered as father of this theory. This word may be drawn from German word "Pragmatisch " which refer to thoughts based on and applying to experience. In educational philosophy, things or concepts, learned by children by doing or direct experience, are refer as "Pragmatic".


Main Charchteristics:
1) Conflict with traditionalism
It does not believe in eternal values. Man makes his own values. Values change according to the change of time. They are relative. There is nothing in the name of eternal values. Truth is that which works, which serves some purpose and is useful to a man. Truth is man-made and the values of life and truth always change.

It is a Revolt against Traditionalism. This philosophy is a midway between Naturalism and Idealism. It neither believes in the established beliefs nor in the objective interpretation of naturalism. It lays emphasis on the practicability of thing and activity.

2)Principle of Usefulness

Pragmatism believes in the principle of Usefulness. Usefulness is the measure of a view point. The thing which gives satisfaction is useful. According to this only those ideas and things are true which have a benefit for man.

3. Thought in Subordinate to Action

Pragmatism sees thought as intrinsically connected with action. It gives supreme position to action.

4. Metaphysics

Pragmatism regards the material world as true. It regards human being as the supreme person. He is a social being and his development is possible only in the society. To it this world is the combination of different elements. It considers truth as changeable.

Truth is man-made. There is a change in its form and concept. Pragmatism believes in the power of God if the existence of God is helpful in the growth of human being otherwise not. It lays stress on action and its consequences. It considers reality as a process of the completion of a task.

5. Axiology

Pragmatism does not believe in eternal values. Man himself creates values. Values are not predetermined. Pragmatists consider consequences as the basis of selection of all types of values.

If the values are useful their selection is appropriate otherwise not. In the context of religion, Dewey has said, 'God is active relation between Ideal and Reality; they consider the use of intelligence in the solution of problems.

6. Epistemology

Pragmatism considers experience as the source of attaining knowledge. Human being receives knowledge through experience based activity and ideas by acting and reacting with human environment. Pragmatists consider experimental methods as the best means of attaining knowledge.

To them problem, selection of problem, data collection, hypothesis and experimentation are the steps of experimental method. Truth is the outcome of expected consequences through this method.

brother i actually have questions if you can answer them it will be helpful

if i and you are partners in a business and killing you increases my profits, sorry , then is it practical and pragmatic of me to kill you?

i think the process can be explained with a better word: utilitarianism. or am i wrong?

this one i like. this one is what we lack as a nation.

how does pragmatism define growth of a human being?

but if a God exists that propounds practicality then will pragmatism accept that God as God?

the last one is again a virtue we as a nation lack.

very useful post brother.

regards

if i and you are partners in a business and killing you increases my profits, sorry , then is it practical and pragmatic of me to kill you?

Pragmatic approach is result and object oriented philosophy. According to this philosophy, if you kill me and escape the trial then you must kill me but if you were hanged after killing me then i don't think it will benefit you :P

i think the process can be explained with a better word: utilitarianism. or am i wrong?

This is the right word. Thank you for sharing. That is why i posted my little effort. Knowledge is always increased by sharing.

how does pragmatism define growth of a human being?

Let me ask you a question. How does religion effect your life? For me it is helpful for my mental health. It helps me whenever i am depressed.

but if a God exists that propounds practicality then will pragmatism accept that God as God?

Existence of GOD can not be proved practically or by experiments. I used to say that our minds are too inferior to understand the existence of GOD. Pragmatism says anything/any action that helps you in achieving your goal, that is reality and justified.

__________________
Think 100 times before you take a decision, But once that decision is taken, stand by it as one man.

[QUOTE=white leopard;733080]
how does pragmatism define growth of a human being?

Let me ask you a question. How does religion effect your life? For me it is helpful for my mental health. It helps me whenever i am depressed.

[QUOTE]

but better mental health means better decision making and better physical functioning. and eventually better results.

but better mental activity also means that i will kill you and get away with it

I did not get what you want to ask.
Better mental activity is only possible with better mental health.
Above i gave my personal example about religion and how is it helpful in growth of human being.

__________________
Think 100 times before you take a decision, But once that decision is taken, stand by it as one man.

your words: For me it is helpful for my mental health. It helps me whenever i am depressed.

i am saying that if you are depressed you won't be able to take the right decision, right?
but religion helps you in getting relaxed. and when you are relaxed you take right decisions.

also better mental health will increase your efficiency, so religion ultimately helps your growth. thus religion has some pragmatism.

or should i rephrase that again?

but then i am also trying to point out that there is a shortcoming in pragmatism because it does not explicitly define human growth.
another shortcoming of pragamatism would be its choice of values. e.g you have your own values and i have my own. what if they get into conflict? then?

I think you are taking it wrongly or i am interpreting it wrongly. It is pragmatism which has religion, if it is helping you, not religion has pragmatism.

[QUOTE=waqas izhar;733092]

Dear its philosophy not science where things are accurate. These are opinion of individuals and people have different opinions.
i don't think pragmatism need explain human growth. Infact you pick only the phrase " human growth" while it was saying about existence of GOD if the believe in GOD helps in human growth(now it can be in any context as i gave my own example) then the believe is right as it is helping to achieve your goal.

Pragmatism does not believe in values if those values do not serve any purpose. In above case pragmatism asked both of us to leave our values and focus on what do we want to achieve or our mutual interest.

PS: A lot of criticism has been done on Pragmatism and People also tried to give answers. I will really appreciate if you bring forward that criticism by some philosopher and then we could try to find it's counter answer

__________________
Think 100 times before you take a decision, But once that decision is taken, stand by it as one man.

Pragmatism generally has been criticized from a range of perspectives. It has been criticized by the philosophical school known as realism, by conservative religious thinkers, and by critics on the left.

Randolph Bourne was the first of a series of leftist critics, beginning at the time of World War I and continuing up to our own time, who have argued that pragmatism has functioned as a kind of apology for the status quo in the United States; that it fails to offer significant moral and political resistance to the existing set of social and institutional relations. For Bourne and his followers, pragmatism came up short when it came time to articulate new values and new ideals in response to that system. Pragmatism, in its insistence on the practical cash value of ideas, had reduced ideas to mere expediency.

Among philosophers committed to a realist or objectivist conception of truth, James and Dewey remain suspect for their belief that truths are provisional tools used to solve particular problems thrown up by life. For philosophers committed to the proposition that knowledge needs to be tested against some objective truth, that truths need to be grounded in some foundation of certain knowledge, James and Dewey remain figures whose work deserves condemnation, because it seems to such philosophers to give license to a kind of make-believe, where virtually every idea is warranted, or every expedient idea is warranted.

Beyond such philosophical criticisms, criticisms have come from other circles. Catholic thinkers and conservative religious thinkers more generally responded to the rise of pragmatism by arguing that its critique of universal truths, its critique of dogmatism was a kind of dogmatism in its own right, and bore the traces of a deep anti-Catholicism and secularism. For such thinkers, pragmatism opened the door to moral nihilism of the sort that James had identified with Nietzsche, to a kind of relativism, to a deeply dangerous, "anything goes" approach to the world.

On the left, starting with the years 1910–19, and particularly during World War I, a reaction against pragmatism set in among some of its most ardent believers, who felt that the doctrine came up short at moments of great political and international military crisis. This is not the time to talk about the debate surrounding World War I, a debate in which Dewey figured so prominently, but it's fair to say that his student and follower, Randolph Bourne, the brilliant cultural critic and Columbia graduate who had studied with Dewey, was the first of a whole series of radical critics of pragmatism who argued that pragmatists, in their insistence that what is true is what works, had essentially paralyzed the imagination; they had disabled the creativity of human beings in the face of an unjust order. Sometimes, Bourne and other leftist critics argued, what is true is what doesn't work, what stands at odds with the existing state of affairs, and one must stay loyal to that truth in the face of a hostile environment.

http://c250.columbia.edu/dkv/extract...tml#transcript