Add What's Everyone Talking About Pragmatic This Moment

What%27s-Everyone-Talking-About-Pragmatic-This-Moment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+Pragmatism and the Illegal
+
+Pragmatism is a normative and descriptive theory. As a theory of descriptive nature, it asserts that the traditional model of jurisprudence doesn't correspond to reality and that legal pragmatism provides a better alternative.
+
+In particular legal pragmatism eschews the notion that right decisions can be derived from some core principle or principles. It favors a practical and contextual approach.
+
+What is Pragmatism?
+
+Pragmatism is a philosophy that developed during the latter part of the nineteenth and early 20th centuries. It was the first North American philosophical movement. (It should be noted that some adherents of existentialism were also called "pragmatists") The pragmaticists, like many other major philosophical movements throughout time were in part influenced by discontent with the state of the world and the past.
+
+It is difficult to provide an exact definition of pragmatism. One of the major characteristics that is frequently associated with pragmatism is that it focuses on the results and consequences. This is sometimes contrasted with other philosophical traditions that take more of a theoretical approach to truth and  [프라그마틱 플레이](https://pragmatickr.com/) knowledge.
+
+Charles Sanders Peirce is credited as the spokesman for pragmatic thinking in the context of philosophy. Peirce believed that only what could be independently tested and proved through practical experiments was deemed to be real or true. In addition, Peirce emphasized that the only way to understand the significance of something was to study its impact on other things.
+
+Another founding pragmatist was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was both an educator and a philosopher. He developed an approach that was more holistic to pragmatism, which included connections to education, society, and art, as well as politics. He was influenced both by Peirce and by the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
+
+The pragmatics also had a loosely defined view of what is the truth. This was not meant to be a relativism but rather an attempt to achieve greater clarity and a solidly-based settled belief. This was accomplished by combining practical knowledge with solid reasoning.
+
+The neo-pragmatic method was later expanded by Putnam to be more broadly defined as internal realism. This was a different approach to correspondence theory of truth, that did not attempt to achieve an external God's-eye viewpoint, but maintained truth's objectivity within a theory or description. It was a similar idea to the ideas of Peirce, James and Dewey however with a more sophisticated formulation.
+
+What is the Pragmatism Theory of Decision-Making?
+
+A legal pragmatist sees law as a method to solve problems, not as a set rules. They reject the traditional view of deductive certainty and instead emphasizes the role of context in decision-making. Legal pragmatists argue that the idea of foundational principles is misguided as in general such principles will be outgrown by actual practice. A pragmatist view is superior to a classical approach to legal decision-making.
+
+The pragmatist outlook is very broad and has given rise to a myriad of theories in ethics, philosophy as well as sociology, science and political theory. Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with having the greatest pragmatism. The pragmatic principle he formulated, a rule to clarify the meaning of hypotheses by examining their practical implications, is its core. However the doctrine's scope has grown significantly over the years, encompassing a wide variety of views. The doctrine has grown to encompass a variety of perspectives, including the belief that a philosophy theory is only true if it is useful, and that knowledge is more than just an abstract representation of the world.
+
+While the pragmatics have contributed to many areas of philosophy, they are not without their critics. The pragmatic pragmatists' aversion to the concept of a priori propositional knowledge has led to an influential and effective critique of traditional analytical philosophy, which has spread beyond philosophy into a myriad of social disciplines, such as the fields of jurisprudence and political science.
+
+Despite this, it remains difficult to categorize a pragmatist view of the law as a descriptive theory. Most judges make decisions that are based on a logical and empirical framework, which relies heavily on precedents and traditional legal documents. However, a legal pragmatist may consider that this model does not adequately capture the real the judicial decision-making process. It is more appropriate to see a pragmatic approach to law as an normative model that serves as a guideline on how law should develop and be taken into account.
+
+What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
+
+Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that sees the knowledge of the world as inseparable from the agency within it. It has been interpreted in many different ways, often in opposition to one another. It is sometimes viewed as a reaction to analytic philosophy while at other times, it is regarded as an alternative to continental thought. It is a growing and developing tradition.
+
+The pragmatists wanted to emphasize the importance of experience and individual consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They were also concerned to correct what they perceived as the flaws of a flawed philosophical tradition that had altered the work of earlier philosophers. These errors included Cartesianism, Nominalism, and a misunderstood of the importance of human reason.
+
+All pragmatists are suspicious of non-experimental and unquestioned images of reasoning. They are also skeptical of any argument which claims that "it works" or "we have always done it this way' is legitimate. For the legal pragmatist these assertions can be interpreted as being excessively legalistic, naively rationalist and uncritical of previous practice.
+
+Contrary to the classical view of law as a set of deductivist rules the pragmaticist emphasizes the importance of context when making legal decisions. It will also recognize the fact that there are a variety of ways to describe law and that these different interpretations must be taken into consideration. The perspective of perspectivalism, can make the legal pragmatic appear less reliant to precedents and accepted analogies.
+
+The view of the legal pragmatist acknowledges that judges don't have access to a core set of fundamentals from which they could make well-reasoned decisions in all instances. The pragmatist will therefore be keen to emphasize the importance of understanding the case before deciding and to be willing to change or even omit a rule of law when it is found to be ineffective.
+
+There is no universally agreed picture of a legal pragmaticist however certain traits are characteristic of the philosophical position. This includes an emphasis on context, and a rejection to any attempt to derive laws from abstract principles that aren't tested in specific situations. The pragmaticist also recognizes that the law is always changing and there isn't a single correct picture.
+
+What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
+
+As a judicial theory, legal pragmatics has been praised as a way to bring about social change. But it has also been criticized as an attempt to avoid legitimate moral and philosophical disputes, by placing them in the realm of legal decision-making. The pragmatist, however, does not want to confine philosophical debate to the realm of the law and instead takes an approach that is pragmatic to these disagreements, which stresses the importance of an open-ended approach to knowledge, and the acceptance that perspectives are inevitable.
+
+Most legal pragmatists reject the foundationalist view of legal decision-making and rely upon traditional legal documents to serve as the basis for judging current cases. They take the view that the cases aren't up to the task of providing a solid enough basis to draw properly-analyzed legal conclusions. They therefore need to be supplemented by other sources, like previously recognized analogies or principles from precedent.
+
+The legal pragmatist is against the notion of a set of fundamental principles that could be used to determine correct decisions. She claims that this would make it simpler for judges, who could base their decisions on predetermined rules and make decisions.
+
+Many legal pragmatists in light of the skepticism typical of neopragmatism and the anti-realism it represents, have taken an even more deflationist approach to the notion of truth. They tend to argue, by focussing on the way in which the concept is used and describing its function, and setting criteria that can be used to establish that a certain concept has this function, that this could be the standard that philosophers can reasonably expect from a truth theory.
+
+Certain pragmatists have taken on more expansive views of truth, referring to it as an objective norm for inquiries and assertions. This perspective combines aspects of pragmatism with the features of the classical idealist and realist philosophies, and it is in keeping with the more broad pragmatic tradition that sees truth as a norm of assertion and inquiry rather than merely a standard for justification or justified assertibility (or any of its variants). This holistic perspective of truth is described as an "instrumental theory of truth" because it aims to define truth in terms of the purposes and values that guide one's involvement with the world.