Larry Hickman

A matter that is easily and usually overlooked is that the formative Pragmatists, especially C. S. Peirce and John Dewey, owed a significant debt to the Utilitarians. In this book, which its foreword tells us is an expansion of the 1983 John Dewey Lecture, James Gouinlock provides an exposition of the work of one Utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, on the subject of free speech in a democratic society. He then explores the ways in which Dewey "reconstructed" Mill's position, and the connections between Mill's concept of liberty and Dewey's notion of social intelligence.

Let me begin by thanking the society’s officers: President Kathleen Knight-Abowitz, President-Elect Len Waks, immediate past President Deron Boyles, Secretary-Treasurer Kyle Greenwalt, membership and development officer Mark Kissling, and of course student liaison Matt Ryg and webmaster Zane Wubbena. I know that their many efforts on behalf of this society are much appreciated by all of us.In 1955, when Will Herberg published his influential book, Protestant–Catholic–Jew, it could be said with some confidence that an essay in American religious sociology could claim exhaustive coverage by restricting its analysis to those three faiths. Scarcely a decade later, however, that formula would be obsolescent. The 1960s...

Jo Ann Boydston, 2 July 1924 - 25 January 2011Jo Ann Boydston enjoyed a distinguished career as general editor of the Collected Works of John Dewey and director of the Center for Dewey Studies at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Born in Poteau, Oklahoma of Choctaw Indian heritage, she graduated summa cum laude from Oklahoma State University in 1944. She received an M.A. from Oklahoma State (1947), a Ph.D. from Columbia University (1950), and honorary doctorates from Indiana University (1994) and Southern Illinois University (2004).In 1961, Boydston joined the staff of a modest research project at Southern Illinois University called "Co-operative Research on Dewey Publications" as assistant to project ..

This chapter discusses some main traits of classical Pragmatism and their potential as critical tools for contemporary discussions about Pragmatism and constructivism. It first examines some of the claims advanced in Stefan Neubert's essay “Pragmatism and Constructivism in Contemporary Philosophical Discourse”. It then explores the vitality of Pragmatist thought and the usefulness of its basic tenets as resources for philosophic criticism. The chapter looks into the problems of “cognitive relativism” in postmodern and neo-Pragmatist discourses. From this standpoint the chapter raises critical questions for the Cologne program of interactive constructivism. It argues for a strong rearticulation of Dewey's instrumentalism and experimentalism and emphasizes its relevancy for the current situation.

: The founders of American pragmatism proposed what they regarded as a radical alternative to the philosophical methods and doctrines of their predecessors and contemporaries. Although their central ideas have been understood and applied in some quarters, there remain other areas within which they have been neither appreciated nor appropriated. One of the more pressing of these areas locates a set of problems of knowledge and valuation related to global citizenship. This essay attempts to demonstrate that classical American pragmatism, because its methods are modeled on successes in the technosciences, offers a set of tools for fostering global citizenship that are more effective than the tools of some of its alternatives. First, pragmatism claims to discover a strain of human commonality that trumps the radical postmodernist emphasis on difference and discontinuity. Second, when pragmatism's theory of truth is coupled with its moderate version of cultural relativism, the more skeptical postmodernist version known as “cognitive” relativism is undercut

This brief essay examines James A. Good’s argument that the Hegel of the young Dewey was functionalist, historicist, instrumentalist, and practicalist—in short, the Hegel of “centrist” Hegelians such as those then active in St. Louis and of contemporary interpreters such as Good himself and Terry Pinkard. Good’s claims are examined in terms of possible conflicts with what is known of William James’s influence on Dewey, and in the light of recently published correspondence in which Dewey comments on the Hegelian “deposit” in his work.