Professor believe them true may expect from them."1 Schiller elaborates this idea as follows: "To say that a truth has consequences and that what has been done is meaningless, means that it has a bearing upon some human interest. 'Its consequences' must be consequences to some one for some purpose. If it is clearly grasped that the 'truth' with which we are concerned is truth for man and that the 'consequences' are human too, it is really superfluous to add either that the consequences must be practical or that they must be good."2 James did not regard practical as "superfluous" but as essential in the application of the pragmatic method, but his idea of the meaning of the word "practical" is more comprehensive than some who have criticized this philosophy have realized. He makes it clear that the word is not restricted to a merely utilitarian meaning. He reminds us that the word is derived from the Greek word that means "action" and from which we derive our words "practice" and "practical." In another connection he explains that practical means to him particular or concrete. Schiller attempts to prevent a too narrow application of the word by reminding us that "all consequences are practical sooner or later." Critics of pragmatic philosophy have attacked this statement on the ground that if Schiller is correct the word "practical" loses its significance when it is used to define pragmatism. But what Schiller had in mind was a recognition of the relation of theory to practice. To the pragmatic philosophers hypothesis, theories, and laws are mere formulas expressing relative truth or truths in generalizations that more or less 1 What Is Pragmatism? p. 22. 2 Studies in Humanism, p. 5. 3 Pragmatism, p. 46. 4 Journal of Philosophy, I, 674. accurately predict evidences which may or will verify them. It is in this sense that Schiller regards consequences as "practical sooner or later." Before passing to the specific answers to the questions raised it may be well to call attention to another term that has been used both as the forerunner of the term pragmatism and by recent writers as synonymous with pragmatism, i. e., the word "humanism." This word was first used by Professor Schiller, who may be regarded as the father of the modern pragmatic movement in philosophy. He defines the term as "the perception that the philosophic problem conceives human beings striving to comprehend a world of human experience by the resources of human minds.”1 He emphasizes this point of view in philosophy by declaring that “man's complete satisfaction shall be the conclusion philosophy must aim at."2 He explains that by "human" is meant "human experience." "Pragmatism and humanism,” says Driscoll, "are terms designating the same thing, e. g., human experience, considered under different viewpoints. Pragmatism sets forth a method of thought; humanism accepts this method, but lays special stress on its content." Schiller recognizes the content element in pragmatic philosophy, but he contends that humanism is more comprehensive than pragmatism. "Pragmatism," he says, "will see a special application of humanism to the theory of knowledge," which means that humanism implies "the expansion of pragmatism." Humanism therefore, involves "a method applicable universally to ethics, to æsthetics, to metaphysics, and to theology, to every concern of man, as well as to the theory of 1 Ibid. p. 2 Ibid., p. 13. 3 Pragmatism and the Problem of the Idea. knowledge." Schiller's distinctions, however, fade away in the larger interpretations given to pragmatic philosophy by James, Dewey, and others. But the use of both terms is significant in the development of this philosophy, for humanism has been used to emphasize the content, and pragmatism the method. This subject matter has been given the definite content of what is human as revealed in experience. The method has been applied to the examination of this experience by looking to the "practical consequences" resulting from a practical experience or group of experiences. Reverting to the questions raised with reference to the pragmatic basis of education, it would appear that an affirmative answer must be given to the first question. Education as conceived and directed in this country has a pragmatic philosophy behind it. Perhaps a negative answer must be given as to the conscious influence of pragmatic philosophy upon education, but this does not indicate that educational theories and methods have not, nevertheless, been definitely influenced by pragmatic philosophy. An attempt will be made to support these answers by tracing the application of pragmatism through American ideals as reflected in educational theory and practice. AMERICANISM AND PRAGMATISM Before passing to the influence of pragmatism on education it would be worth while to observe that pragmatic philosophy has flourished in the United States. Its influence has been less noticeable even in England, where it first received modern consideration. Attention has been called to Dewey's definition of pragmatism as "a temper of mind, an attitude." There is much in 1 Studies in Humanism, p. 16. the attitude of mind of the American people that makes pragmatism an attractive philosophy. Americanism and pragmatism are interrelated in that the spiritualizing power of the nation has been given expression by the motive and method of this philosophy. Americanism is universally associated with certain outstanding qualities that reflect a pragmatic philosophy. Contemporaneous American life manifests an abiding faith in practicality and efficiency. These ideals are expressed in belief in work—not for its own sake, but for "the practical consequences" that result from it. Americanism is universally associated with "action" and the self-directive efforts of the individual. This has given expression in various ways to exaggeration, radicalism, individualism, and to an unwarranted optimism,1 but underlying all these is an abiding faith in the value of experience and a belief in a creed or philosophy of life that really "works" when applied to practical situations. It would be almost possible to substitute the word pragmatism for Americanism in David Jayne Hill's explanation of what Americanism is, in his book Americanism: What It Is: "It is positive, constructive. It starts with the idea that the human individual has an intrinsic value. It holds that he has an inherent right to bring to fruition all his native powers and to enjoy the fruits of his efforts. His real value lies not in what he has, but in what he is and may become; and he may become anything his capacities and his achievements may enable him to be."2 This conception of Americanism is the supreme justification for educational opportunity for all children at public expense, and at the same time it is humanistic 1 See Bliss Perry: The American Mind. in content and pragmatic in method, or either or both of these if we conceive of them as synonymous and expressing the idea of "intrinsic value," "inherent right," and a method of giving these qualities ample opportunity for expression. INFLUENCE ON EDUCATION Americanism as it is understood has been and is being largely reflected in educational theory and practice. Publicly supported institutions seek justification on these grounds. Criticism is constantly being directed at our educational system because it fails in this or that particular to reflect some attribute of Americanism. These criticisms are constantly producing modifications and redirections in our educational practices. This in itself is pragmatic, for it is a frank recognition of relativism. Compromises are constantly being made in educational effort in the interests of social demands. The denial of the absolute and the recognition of the relative value, therefore, is a fundamental application of pragmatism to educational policy. Pragmatic philosophy was, as we would naturally expect, first reflected in American university life. We are all familiar with the changes in methods of instruction. The newer emphasis on the natural and social sciences, the laboratory methods of instruction, and the adjustment of educational material to means and ends have largely developed within a generation. We are all familiar with the preference for the concrete,1 rather than the abstract, the abhorrence of mere book-learning, intolerance for the doctrinaire, and the optimism reflected in our faith in Americanism. Every college and university 1"The whole originality of pragmatism," says James, "the whole point in it, is its use of the concrete way of seeing. It begins with concreteness and returns and ends with it.' |