RUTH ANNA PUTNAM : Relegates to the Dark Shadows the Role of Women a PRAGMATIC THINKER for OUR TIME Thinkers Who Shaped the Pragmatic Movement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RUTH ANNA PUTNAM : relegates to the dark shadows the role of women A PRAGMATIC THINKER FOR OUR TIME thinkers who shaped the pragmatic movement. We tend Richard J. Bernstein to forget that Jane Addams had an enormous influence New School for Social Research on John Dewey. And except for a few Peirce scholars, [email protected] most philosophers are unaware of the brilliant correspondence between Peirce and Lady Victoria Welby ABSTRACT : Ruth Anna Putnam is one the most imaginative and vital pragmatic thinkers of our time. Unfortunately, where we find some of Peirce’s most illuminating her philosophical work has been overshadowed by her discussions of his theory of signs and how it is related to much more famous husband, Hilary Putnam. For many philosophers Ruth Anna’s primary claim to fame is that his version of pragmatism. Their exchanges are a model she is responsible for getting Hilary to take pragmatism of philosophical dialogue. Even if we focus on the seriously—something that he has acknowledged on many occasions. But viewing her in this limited way does renaissance of pragmatism in the latter part of the a great injustice to her own originality. The aim of this twentieth century and the early decades of the twenty- paper, the first scholarly study of Ruth Anna Putnam’s work, is to challenge that view. first century, philosophers interested in the varieties of pragmatism normally direct our attention to such Keywords: Pragmatism, Ruth Anna Putnam, women in thinkers as Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, and Robert philosophy, women in pragmatism, Hilary Putnam Brandom. We neglect the many women philosophers Ever since I wrote my dissertation on John Dewey’s who have developed pragmatic themes in their metaphysics of experience (1957), I have always taken philosophical work. When I speak of “we” in this context, 1 “pragmatism seriously”—to use Ruth Anna Putnam’s I include myself. expression, but I have never focused on the outstanding Consequently, I want to dedicate this essay to a contributions to the pragmatic tradition by women study of Ruth Anna Putnam’s work. She is one of the thinkers. “‘Pragmatism’,” as Richard Rorty wrote in his most imaginative and vital pragmatic thinkers of our 1979 presidential address, “is a vague, ambiguous, and time. Unfortunately, the philosophical work of Ruth overworked word. Nevertheless, it names the chief glory Anna Putnam has been overshadowed by her much of our country’s intellectual tradition. No other American more famous husband, Hilary Putnam. For many writers offered so radical a suggestion for making our philosophers Ruth Anna’s primary claim to fame is that future different from our past, as have James and she is responsible for getting Hilary to take pragmatism Dewey” (Rorty 1982: 160). There is a traditional narrow seriously—something that he has acknowledged on sense of pragmatism where it is taken to be primary a many occasions. But viewing her in this limited way does “theory” of meaning and truth. If we think of a great injustice to her own originality. David Macarthur pragmatism in this way, then we do a vast injustice to has recently edited a splendid volume of essays by Ruth the richness and diversity of issues and problems treated Anna and Hilary Putnam. Pragmatism as a Way of Life: by these pragmatic thinkers, which range from The Lasting Legacy of William James and John Dewey cosmological speculations to specific aesthetic, moral, consists of twenty-seven essays made up of those social, and political questions. Furthermore, restricting written separately as well as two co-written essays. This the label “pragmatism” to this famous triad of thinkers is the first time that most of Ruth Anna’s essays on neglects the important pragmatic contributions by black pragmatic themes have been collected in one place, thinkers such as W.E B. Dubois and Alain Locke—both of although the purpose of this anthology is to display the whom studied at Harvard when William James, George mutual and interrelated interest in pragmatism by Ruth Santayana, and Josiah Royce were on the philosophy Anna and Hilary Putnam I plan, however, to concentrate faculty. The emphasis—indeed overemphasis on Peirce, James and Dewey (and sometimes Mead)—also 1 For a comprehensive discussion of pragmatism, women, and feminist philosophy see Seigfried 1996. Pragmatism Today Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2018 RUTH A NNA PUTNAM : A PRAGMATIC THINKER FOR OUR TIME Richard J. Bernstein almost exclusively on Ruth Anna’s essays. I am interested behind in the study” (p.15). 2 She uses a minimum of in Ruth Anna’s work because she is such an excellent technical jargon and only occasionally refers to academic philosopher, not because she is a “woman” philosopher. articles in specialized philosophical journals. What makes But the sad truth is that like so many women her prose so vivid is that she frequently gives concrete philosophers, past and present, her work has been examples from “real life” problems to illustrate her key frequently ignored or underrated precisely because she points. Any intelligent reader, regardless of background, is a woman. can read and learn from her. In this respect, she follows In his essay “Pragmatism and Moral Objectivity” in the best tradition of James and Dewey—especially Hilary Putnam indicates what he finds attractive about when they were addressing general readers. She American pragmatism. manages to do this without a loss of precision or subtlety. She is in genuine dialogue with James and What I find attractive in pragmatism is not a Dewey but clearly indicates when she agrees or systematic theory in the usual sense at all. It is disagrees with them—and why. In reading her essays, rather a certain group of theses, which can be and indeed were argued very differently by one has the experience of participating in a lively open- different philosophers with different concerns ended engaging conversation. [my italics--RJB], and which became the basis of the philosophes of Peirce, and above all James Let me illustrate her down to earth approach with and Dewey. Cursorily summarized, those theses reference to one of the most discussed issues in are (1) antiskepticism; pragmatists hold that doubt requires justification just as much as belief Anglophone philosophy during the past one hundred (recall Peirce’s famous distinction between years: the issue of realism versus anti-realism, and the “real” and “philosophical” doubt; (2) fallibilism; pragmatists hold that there is never a closely related issue of realism versus relativism. (Not all metaphysical guarantee to be had that such-and- anti-realists are relativists.) Of course, one of the things such a belief will never need revision (that one can be both fallibilistic and antiskeptical is that keep these debates going is specifying the precise perhaps the unique insight of American meaning of these contested concepts. Take, for example, pragmatism; (3) the thesis that there is no fundamental dichotomy between “facts” and the work of Hilary Putnam. He has moved from a version “values”; and (4) the thesis that, in a certain of metaphysical realism to internal realism (realism with sense, practice is primary in philosophy (Putnam: 1994: 152). a small “r”) to refining this to a form of pragmatic or common sense realism. Hilary Putnam staunchly defends Ruth Anna certainly agrees with all these theses at a realism with a small “r” because he believes that the general level. What I hope to show that she interprets alternatives—metaphysical realism or relativism—are and argues for these theses in a very distinctive manner self-defeating and ultimately incoherent. Hilary Putnam that reflect her primary concerns. frequently characterizes Rorty as the chief contemporary The initial striking impression in reading Ruth advocate of anti-realist relativism. Rorty’s responds that Anna’s essays is their lucidity, freshness and grace. Like he is not a relativist and claims that the “relativist James and Dewey, she is concerned to show that menace” is an invention of Hilary Putnam. There are philosophers do not have to focus exclusively on the good reasons why so much energy has gone into the problems of philosophy but can deal in an illuminating debates about realism and anti-realism. On the one hand fashion with the problems of human beings. “So what many philosophers (including Rorty and Hilary Putnam) does it mean to turn away from the problems of reject metaphysical realism and have taken the linguistic philosophers? It means to me—and here I am using a phrase from David Hume rather than the pragmatists— 2 Unless otherwise noted, all page references are to that I seek a philosophy that I do not have to leave essays by Ruth Anna Putnam collected in Pragmatism as a Way of Life edited by D. Macarthur (2017). 140 Pragmatism Today Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2018 RUTH A NNA PUTNAM : A PRAGMATIC THINKER FOR OUR TIME Richard J. Bernstein turn. Both Rorty and Hilary Putnam are skeptical of the does is recognize the basic insights or “intuitions” of the very idea that we can escape from language and from opposing positions and shows how from her pragmatic the descriptive functions of language. Both believe that perspective they are compatible. We may say that the we cannot make a sharp fixed distinction between basic intuition behind realism is the necessity to descriptive language and nonlinguistic fact. They both recognize that there is a common objective world that reject the idea that we can somehow directly compare constrains our warranted beliefs. On the other hand, the our ideas, concepts, thoughts, judgments or sentences insight behind many forms of anti-realism is that, as with an independent reality to see whether or not they finite human beings we are limited in knowing the world “correspond.” Both Rorty and Putnam are among those by our linguistic descriptions.