I Reject Pragmatism

Pragmatism is not appealing. Neither American Pragmatism nor Kantian Pragmatism appeal to me.

As a Practicalist, I hold that our top focus in life should be to create not just any value, but value that is functionally reliable. The difference between me and a Pragmatist is that I focus on what works, and Pragmatists focus on analyzing statements which congrue with their axiom that a belief is true if it works in practice. I don't have any axiom about truth in the first place. Anyway, practicalism is a disposition toward action and pragmatism is a theory of truth.

American Pragmatism in particular has strange ideas of truth. Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey can be considered the three fathers of American Pragmatism, starting with Peirce:

• Peirce defines truth as "the opinion that would be agreed upon at the end of inquiry by an ideal community of investigators."
• James defines truth as "a belief that is verifiable, workable, and fits experience in a satisfying way over time."
• Finally, Dewey defines truth as "a claim that is justified given the best available inquiry."

Not only are these conceptions of truth rather strange and convoluted, their evolution would also be expected to increase in complexity overtime. Kantian Pragmatism has a similar problem. The pursuit of truth leads to a rabbithole that excuses horrendous and continuous complexity, something which runs contrary to the cares of a Practicalist.

Indeed, why should I care about any of this? It is much simpler to just reject the idea of truth and so avoid these issues. For more info on said issues, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth#Criticisms

Verdict: I affirm Practicalism and reject Pragmatism.