The Difference Between Pragmatism and Naiveté
If you have ever wondered about the difference between pragmatism and naiveté, you are not alone. Countless others have had the same dilemma. Pragmatic people are concerned with practical issues and are focused on results rather than aesthetic value. However, these two views are very different, and this difference can be problematic. We have discussed a few examples of each, and they may not apply to your particular situation.
Neo-pragmatism, on the other hand, emphasizes the objectivity of truth while rejecting metaphysical realism. This version of pragmatism is often associated with Hilary Putnam, though Putnam has changed his views over time. The less extreme version of neo-pragmatism emphasizes the fact that truth is warranted when asserted before a well-informed audience, rather than a specific group of people.
In addition to addressing the problem of truth, some practitioners of pragmatism argue that determining truth is not as straightforward as assessing its usefulness. For example, they argue that a particular belief is more or less useful for different purposes. This distinction does not make pragmatic theories of truth any easier to define. Neither does it simplify the concept of truth, and it is still largely subjective. It is not easy to decide which of these two is true.
Similarly, emotions are ways of achieving goals and bringing about effects in the social environment. These emotions are world-to-mind directed, in intentionality. By contrast, pragmatic actions involve transforming a physical or social space in order to advance toward a goal state. Pragmatic actions provide a new perspective on the role of emotions in social situations. They also provide an opportunity for greater self-understanding and control. They also facilitate the emergence of empathy.
In addition, a pragmatic theory of truth prioritizes speech-act projects over justification and neo-pragmatic theories of truth. Both of these approaches acknowledge that truth can play a fundamental role in shaping inquiry and acting as a norm in assertive discourse. While pragmatic theories of truth are less austere than deflationary ones, they do recognize that truth has an important role in shaping inquiry and establishing objective expectations.
The boundary between pragmatics and semantics is often discussed. Formal pragmatics relates to context dependence and is often called the semantics of indexicals. The logical theory of formal pragmatics was developed by Carlo Dalla Pozza, and it seems to be related to intuitionistic semantics. In a similar fashion, formal pragmatics addresses the concept of assertion sign. In addition, it is connected to the ideas of classical and intuitionistic semantics, and deals with illocutionary forces.