Pragmatic is the ability to remain calm and make practical decisions in stressful situations. Pragmatists don’t get hung up on big-picture ideals or emotions, and they can break a problem down into manageable chunks to work through it step by step.
People who are pragmatic are able to stay calm under pressure, which makes them great leaders and leaders that you can count on in an emergency. They’re able to think logically and clearly, making unbiased decisions. People who are pragmatic are hard-working and reasonable, they don’t have lofty goals, they just take the steps necessary to accomplish something. The opposite of a pragmatic person would be someone who is dogmatic, which can lead to bad decisions and an inability to remain objective.
The philosophy of Pragmatism first emerged in the United States around 1870, and it continues to present a third alternative to analytic and Continental traditions worldwide. The key first generation pragmatists were Charles Sanders Peirce, who defined and defended the view, and his Harvard colleague Josiah Royce (1855-1916). Peirce’s student William James was another major contributor to this school of thought, critiquing prevailing individualist ontologies in favor of a more holistic approach (James 1934).
Two main approaches developed in later twentieth century neo-pragmatism. One, influenced by philosopher Richard Rorty, flirted with relativism and implied that truth isn’t as important as it has long been taken to be. This stance arguably undercut the more constructive commitments of original pragmatism.
Another approach, based on the work of philosopher Hilary Putnam, was more committed to the central tenets of the original pragmatists and their critics. These include a rejection of skepticism and a willingness to embrace fallibilism, a focus on the primacy of practice, and a general rejection of dichotomies such as fact/value, mind/body, analytic/synthetic. This stance has also been characterized as pragmatic revisionism, with some scholars using it to challenge prevailing analytic philosophies of language and meaning.
Contemporary pragmatists continue to debate the best ways to articulate their view. Some focus on a theory of the meanings and functions of words, others look at how pragmatic principles interact with linguistic structures and processes, and still others explore pragmatism’s potential to be applied to social science and education. Increasingly, the intellectual centre of gravity for pragmatics is moving out of North America, with vibrant research networks developing in South America, Scandinavia and most recently central Europe and China. One of the key challenges for this movement is to balance a pragmatist account of the nature of inquiry with its commitments to ethics, long-term sustainability, foundational principles, and idealistic goals. This is particularly important given the many areas in which pragmatics can play a crucial role.
