WHAT PRAGMATISM 18 571 



WHAT PRAGMATISM IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT 



By THOMAS MITCHELL SHACKLEFORD 



TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 



ONE who undertakes to tell what pragmatism is has a hard task to 

 perform. Before he gets through with it, he may find himself 

 in a like plight with old Kaspar in trying to tell his grandchildren of 

 the battle of Blenheim. You will remember that in response to little 

 Peterkin's request, " Now tell us what 'twas all about," and to his 

 question, " And what good came of it at last ? " Kaspar could only 

 declare " That 'twas a famous victory." 



To begin with, not only has no history of the origin, rise and 

 spread of pragmatism yet been written, but no full, complete, sys- 

 tematic statement of what it really is, what it does and what it may 

 be expected to do is to be found anywhere. A systematic exposition 

 of this " new philosophy " remains an unfulfilled want. We can not 

 be said to have anything like an adequate treatise. Dr. Schiller's 

 " Humanism " and " Studies in Humanism " consist of a number of 

 detached essays, largely controversial in character, written at different 

 times between the years 1892 and 1907, on various occasions and for 

 special purposes. Professor Dewey's " Studies in Logical Theory " 

 also consists of detached essays from himself and seven of his co-workers, 

 and Professor James's " Pragmatism " is made up of eight popular 

 lectures, published in the same form in which they were delivered, 

 without notes and without revision. All of these are most excellent 

 books, well written, entertaining and bearing directly upon the new 

 philosophical movement, only they are not, and do not pretend to be, 

 what most of the critics seem to have rather hastily assumed — full or 

 complete expositions or treatises. Much other literature upon the 

 subject may be found scattered through the various philosophical 

 periodicals. In fact, so voluminous has this literature grown of late 

 years and the movement has evoked so much hostile criticism, that the 

 uninformed reader would be justifiable in thinking "pragmatism a 

 complete system set forth for centuries in hundreds of ponderous 

 volumes." 



However, for all practical purposes, it still remains as true as in 

 1905, when Professor James wrote concerning the movement: 



It suffers badly at present from incomplete definition. Its most systematic 

 advocates, Schiller and Dewey, have published fragmentary programs only. 



So, a few months later, an able and somewhat sympathetic reviewer 

 complained : 



