harborpain6

User Name: You need to be a registered (and logged in) user to view username.

Total Articles : 0

http://exploreourpubliclands.org/members/guitarcd6/activity/588345/

Pragmatism and the Illegal Pragmatism is a descriptive and normative theory As a description theory it asserts that the traditional view of jurisprudence may not be correct and that legal Pragmatism is a better choice Particularly legal pragmatism rejects the notion that good decisions can be determined from a core principle or set of principles It advocates a pragmatic contextbased approach What is Pragmatism The philosophy of pragmatism was born in the latter half of 19th and the early 20th centuries It was the first truly North American philosophical movement though it is important to note that there were followers of the existentialism movement that was developing at the time who were also known as pragmatists As with other major movements in the history of philosophy the pragmaticists were motivated by a discontent with the current state of affairs in the world and in the past In terms of what pragmatism actually means it is difficult to establish a precise definition Pragmatism is usually focused on outcomes and results This is often in contrast with other philosophical traditions that have an a more theoretical view of truth and knowledge Charles Sanders Peirce has been acknowledged as the father of the philosophy of pragmatism He believed that only what can be independently verified and proven through practical experiments is true or authentic Peirce also stressed that the only real method of understanding something was to examine the effects it had on other people John Dewey an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 to 1952 was another founding pragmatist He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism which included connections to society education art politics and He was greatly influenced by Peirce and also drew inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel The pragmatists had a looser definition of what constitutes truth This was not meant to be a relativism but rather an attempt to attain greater clarity and a solidlybased settled belief This was achieved by an amalgamation of practical experience and sound reasoning The neopragmatic concept was later extended by Putnam to be defined as internal realists This was a different approach to correspondence theories of truth that did away with the aim of achieving an external Gods eye perspective while maintaining truths objectivity albeit inside the framework of a theory or description It was a similar idea to the theories of Peirce James and Dewey but with an improved formulation What is Pragmatisms Theory of DecisionMaking A legal pragmatist views law as a method to resolve problems not as a set rules Thus he or she rejects the classical picture of deductive certainty and instead emphasizes the importance of context in decisionmaking Moreover legal pragmatists argue that the notion of foundational principles is misguided since as a general rule the principles that are based on them will be devalued by application A pragmatic approach is superior to a traditional view of legal decisionmaking The pragmatist view is broad and has spawned numerous theories that span philosophy science ethics sociology political theory and even politics Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with being the most pragmatist His pragmatic principle that aims to clarify the meaning of hypotheses by examining their practical implications is the foundation of the However the scope of the doctrine has grown significantly over time covering a wide variety of views These include the view that a philosophical theory is true if and only if it has practical consequences the view that knowledge is primarily a process of transacting with rather than a representation of nature and the idea that articulate language rests on an underlying foundation of shared practices which cannot be fully expressed Although the pragmatics have contributed to many areas of philosophy they arent without critics The pragmatists rejection of a priori propositional knowledge has led to an influential and effective critique of traditional analytical philosophy that has extended beyond philosophy into a myriad of social disciplines including the study of jurisprudence as well as political science It is still difficult to classify the pragmatist view to law as a description theory Judges tend to act as if they follow an empiricist logic that is based on precedent and traditional legal materials for their decisions However an attorney pragmatist could be able to argue that this model doesnt adequately reflect the realtime nature of judicial decisionmaking Thus its more sensible to consider the law in a pragmatist perspective as an normative theory that can provide guidelines for how law should be interpreted and developed What is Pragmatisms Theory of Conflict Resolution Pragmatism is a philosophy that views the knowledge of the world as inseparable from agency within it It is interpreted in many different ways usually in conflict with one another It is sometimes viewed as a response to analytic philosophy whereas at other times it is seen as an alternative to continental thought It is a tradition that is growing and growing The pragmatists sought to emphasize the importance of personal experience and consciousness in forming beliefs They also wanted to correct what they believed to be the mistakes of a philosophical tradition that was outdated that had distorted earlier thinkers work These mistakes included Cartesianism Nominalism and a misunderstood of the role of human reason All pragmatists are suspicious of nonexperimental and unquestioned images of reason They will therefore be wary of any argument which claims that it works or we have always done this way are legitimate These assertions could be seen as being too legalistic naive rationalism and uncritical of past practice by the legal pragmatic Contrary to the conventional notion of law as a set of deductivist rules the pragmatist stresses the importance of context when making legal decisions It will also acknowledge the fact that there are many ways to describe law and that the various interpretations should be embraced This stance called perspectivalism can make the legal pragmatist appear less deferential to precedent and previously accepted analogies The legal pragmatists view recognizes that judges do not have access to a core set of principles from which they could make wellreasoned decisions in all instances The pragmatist will therefore be keen to stress the importance of knowing the facts before deciding and to be prepared to alter or even omit a rule of law when it is found to be ineffective While there is no one accepted definition of what a pragmatist in the legal field should look like There are some characteristics that define this stance on philosophy This is a focus on context and a rejection to any attempt to derive laws from abstract concepts that arent tested in specific situations Furthermore 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 will realize that the law is constantly changing and there will be no one correct interpretation of it What is Pragmatisms Theory of Justice As a theory of judicial procedure legal pragmatism has been lauded as a method of bringing about social changes It has been criticized for relegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to the realm of legal decisionmaking The pragmatic does not want to confine philosophical debate to the realm of the law and instead takes an approach that is pragmatic to these disputes that emphasizes contextual sensitivity the importance of an openended approach to knowledge and a willingness to acknowledge that different perspectives are inevitable The majority of legal pragmatists do not believe in an idea of a foundationalist model of legal decisionmaking and rely on traditional legal documents to provide the basis for judging current cases They believe that the case law alone are not enough to provide a solid basis to properly analyze legal conclusions Therefore they need to supplement the case with other sources like analogies or concepts derived from precedent The legal pragmatist likewise rejects the notion that right decisions can be deduced from some overarching set of fundamental principles arguing that such a scenario makes judges too easy to base their decisions on predetermined rules Instead she advocates a system that recognizes the inexorable influence of the context Many legal pragmatists in light of the skepticism that is characteristic of neopragmatism and its antirealism have taken an elitist stance toward the notion of truth By focusing on the way concepts are used in its context describing its function and establishing criteria for recognizing the concepts function they have been able to suggest that this is all that philosophers can reasonably expect from the theory of truth Some pragmatists have adopted a broader view of truth which they call an objective norm for inquiries and assertions This perspective combines elements from the pragmatist tradition with classical realist and Idealist philosophical theories It is also in line with the more pragmatic tradition which regards truth as an objective standard of assertion and inquiry and not just a standard of justification or warranted affirmability or its derivatives This more holistic concept of truth is known as an instrumental theory of truth as it seeks to define truth purely by reference to the goals and values that determine an individuals interaction with the world