프라그마틱 게임 and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be characterized as both a descriptive and normative theory. As a descriptive theory, it asserts that the traditional picture of jurisprudence does not reflect reality and that pragmatism in law provides a better alternative.
Particularly the area of legal pragmatism, it rejects the notion that right decisions can be derived from a core principle or set of principles. It argues for a pragmatic, context-based approach.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that developed during the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries. It was the first fully North American philosophical movement (though it should be noted that there were also followers of the later-developing existentialism who were also labeled "pragmatists"). As with other major movements in the history of philosophy the pragmaticists were motivated by discontent with the current state of affairs in the world and in the past.
It is a challenge to give an exact definition of pragmatism. Pragmatism is typically associated with its focus on results and outcomes. This is often in contrast to other philosophical traditions which have an a more theoretical approach to truth and knowing.
Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with being the founder of pragmatism as it applies to philosophy. He argued that only what could be independently verified and proved through practical tests was believed to be true. Peirce also stressed that the only true way to understand something was to look at its impact on others.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 to 1952, was also a founder pragmatist. He developed an approach that was more holistic to pragmatism, which included connections with education, society, and art, as well as politics. He was influenced by Peirce and by the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatists had a more loose definition of what constitutes truth. It was not intended to be a relativist position, but rather an attempt to achieve a greater degree of clarity and firmly justified established beliefs. This was accomplished by combining practical knowledge with logical reasoning.
The neo-pragmatic method was later extended by Putnam to be more broadly defined as internal realism. This was a possible alternative to correspondence theories of truth, which dispensed with the aim of achieving an external God's eye point of view while retaining the objective nature of truth, although within a description or theory. It was a more sophisticated version of the ideas of Peirce and James.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist in the field of law views law as a resolving process and not a set of predetermined rules. Thus, he or she rejects the classical picture of deductive certainty, and instead emphasizes the importance of context in making decisions. Furthermore, legal pragmatists believe that the idea of fundamental principles is a misguided notion since generally, any such principles would be discarded by the application. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is superior to a classical view of the process of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist viewpoint is broad and has inspired various theories, including those in ethics, science, philosophy, political theory, sociology and even politics. However, Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism and his pragmatism-based maxim that clarifies the meaning of hypotheses through tracing their practical consequences is the core of the doctrine however, the concept has expanded to encompass a wide range of views. The doctrine has been expanded to encompass a variety of perspectives, including the belief that a philosophy theory only valid if it is useful, and that knowledge is more than a representation of the world.
The pragmatists do not go unnoticed by critics, despite their contributions to many areas of philosophy. The pragmatic pragmatists' aversion to the notion of a priori knowledge has led to an influential and powerful critique of traditional analytical philosophy, which has extended beyond philosophy to a range of social disciplines, such as jurisprudence and political science.
It is still difficult to classify the pragmatist approach to law as a description theory. Most judges make decisions using a logical-empirical framework, which relies heavily on precedents and other traditional legal materials. A legal pragmatist, however, may argue that this model doesn't accurately reflect the real dynamic of judicial decisions. Therefore, it is more appropriate to view the law in a pragmatist perspective as an normative theory that can provide a guideline for how law should be interpreted and developed.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that posits the world's knowledge and agency as being unassociable. It has attracted a wide and often contradictory range of interpretations. It is often seen as a reaction to analytic philosophy, while at other times, it is seen as an alternative to continental thinking. It is a growing and growing tradition.
The pragmatists wanted to insist on the importance of personal experience and consciousness in forming beliefs. They also sought to correct what they considered to be the errors of an outdated philosophical heritage that had distorted earlier thinkers' work. These errors included Cartesianism and Nominalism, as well as an ignorance of the importance of human reasoning.
All pragmatists are skeptical about the unquestioned and non-experimental representations of reasoning. They are suspicious of any argument that asserts that "it works" or "we have always done things this way" are true. These statements could be interpreted as being too legalistic, naively rationalism and uncritical of previous practices by the legal pragmatic.
Contrary to the conventional view of law as a set of deductivist rules the pragmaticist emphasizes the importance of context when making legal decisions. It will also acknowledge the fact that there are a variety of ways to define law, and that these variations should be embraced. This perspective, called perspectivalism, may make the legal pragmatic appear less deferential to precedents and accepted analogies.
A major aspect of the legal pragmatist view is its recognition that judges are not privy to a set or rules from which they can make well-argued decisions in every case. The pragmatist will thus be keen to emphasize the importance of understanding the case before making a decision and to be prepared to alter or even omit a rule of law when it is found to be ineffective.
There is no universally agreed definition of a legal pragmaticist, but certain characteristics tend to characterise the philosophical stance. This is a focus on context, and a rejection to any attempt to derive laws from abstract principles that are not tested in specific cases. The pragmaticist is also aware that the law is always changing and there isn't only one correct view.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
Legal pragmatism as a judicial philosophy has been praised for its ability to bring about social changes. But it is also criticized as an attempt to avoid legitimate philosophical and moral disputes, by relegating them to the arena of legal decision-making. The pragmatist is not interested in relegating the philosophical debate to the realm of law. Instead, he takes an open and pragmatic approach, and recognizes that perspectives will always be inevitable.
The majority of legal pragmatists do not accept the idea of a foundationalist approach to legal decision-making and instead rely on traditional legal sources to decide current cases. They believe that cases are not necessarily up to the task of providing a solid enough basis for deducing properly analyzed legal conclusions and therefore must be supplemented by other sources, including previously approved analogies or concepts from precedent.
The legal pragmatist also rejects the idea that good decisions can be deduced from some overarching set of fundamental principles in the belief that such a picture makes it too easy for judges to rest their decisions on predetermined "rules." Instead she favors a method that recognizes the inexorable influence of the context.
Many legal pragmatists, in light of the skepticism typical of neopragmatism as well as the anti-realism it represents they have adopted an elitist stance toward the concept of truth. They tend to argue that by focussing on the way in which the concept is used, describing its purpose and establishing criteria to recognize that a particular concept serves this purpose and that this is the standard that philosophers can reasonably be expecting from a truth theory.
Some pragmatists have taken a more expansive approach to truth that they have described as an objective standard for assertion and inquiry. 프라그마틱 환수율 combines elements from the pragmatist tradition with classical realist and Idealist philosophical theories. It is also in line with the larger pragmatic tradition, which sees truth as a definite standard for inquiry and assertion, not merely a standard for justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This more holistic concept of truth is known as an "instrumental" theory of truth because it is a search for truth to be defined by the goals and values that determine a person's engagement with the world.