In The name Of God the Beneficent the Merciful

Relativism in Pragmatism as Practical Methodology

Abstract
Pragmatism as a new philosophical school is intelligible for public. Different issues are discussed in pragmatism without the complicated expressing or misleading reasoning. In reverse, the classical philosophy and even many new philosophical schools have problematic arguments. This school can be applied as an effective method with more appropriate and functional status in the scholarship affairs. Pragmatism is compared with two basic schools of philosophy, Idealism and Realism by library research method. Strengths and weaknesses of this school are determined in the compared process. Extreme relativism and indefinite variables and principles are expressed as its main disadvantage. Ultimately, pragmatism is defined as useful method with resolving this problem by deion of variables and principles.
Key words
Pragmatism, philosophical school, Relativism, Indefinite variables, indefinite principles

Introduction
It is a historical reality that Pragmatism is justification for American development. This philosophical school present the approaches of thinking about progressing and industrializing of the USA by a philosophical framework. This field of scientific tradition began in the United State on the late 19th century and early 20th century. Three scientists can be mentioned as great scholar had been influenced on pragmatism, Charles Sanders pierce, William James and John Dewey.
Pragmatists intend to reform the schools of philosophy and bring them more in line with the practical ways as they understood it. They discussed that Realist and Idealist philosophy wanted to present universal knowledge as concepts beyond what general science could got it. It is a main issue in pragmatism that inference does not have power in the recognition of knowledge and awareness of conceptual world is configured by methods of inference from practical world.
In pragmatic school, theory and practice are not two distinct phenomena. Concepts and theories are tools for using to get most utility in the world. That is to note that, the basic tenets of pragmatism originate from intellectualizing practice not practices intelligence. Theory is a consequence from direct practice and it ultimately should return to basic practice.
While human"s needs should be satisfied, Experience would be emergence. It is necessary which is explained all section of experience consist of connections, concepts, meaning not expressing them away and defining empirical information as ultimate reality. Pragmatism presents no basic difference between facts and values or between practical and theoretical arguments

.

Pragmatism in comparison with Idealism and Realism
Unlike the Idealism, one of the important features of pragmatism is that theory and reasoning are consequence of practice and result. In this school, scholars attack to logic arguments and claim that mental inferences are meaningless. In their view, the experience is the origin of theory and concept and rejects the primacy of theory. They do not have non-practical targets. Theory and notion are used as means in order to insure the welfare of human being.
"Grant an idea or belief to be true; what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone"s actual life?". (James, W, 1906)
Therefore, James presented pragmatism as a method, and not a set of theories. It including firstly with asking this question: "Grant an idea or belief to be true, it says, what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone"s actual life?" In other side of coin, how is its ‘truth" be understood? Which experiences should be separate of those, which get if the theory is incorrect? What, simply, is the value of truth with practical terms?
In the other hand, pragmatists claim that philosophy should be more than a rational argument, and the main purpose is to contribute human entities live by illustrate how to find and correspond theories that appropriate with temperament and needs. so they want to change the focus knowledge from ively pure beliefs to theory that make benefit for human being.( James, William,1906)
One of the outcomes of this view, is the cognition is formed by contemporary human desire and interest in the every stage. As well as a utility exists for grasping the cognition regarding to it is rational science, when the utility ends its cognition ends too. Individuals have to think when want to resolve their problem, so there are no problems, there are no thinking.
In some instances, we can obtain utility from apply two empirical and rational approaches, for instance, regarding factual matters. But in most instances there are more benefit with tangible result.
The world in Idealism and Realism epistemology has specific characteristics and revealed definition, but in pragmatism world is changing continuously. For this and other reasons, The world will be in progress and improvement. Then our understanding must be in growing and promoting. No creatures are complete and universe is undetermined and incomplete. New laws and rules are made every moment. The last periods and history do not have importance. The most important time belongs to present and future.
"The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one."( Heelan, Patrick A. and SchulkinSource, Jay,1998)
Pragmatic philosophy is explained to conduct a method of becoming better adopted with the world. Living in the world does not based on cognition what is true, but on understanding matters and phenomena that suit us.

In reverse Idealism and Realism that accept religion or reject it totally, pragmatic philosophy admits with religious faith for its effective results in life. As it have referred earlier, the function of philosophy in pragmatism is to teach how to live for getting best benefit, not to search for the truth in the world. The life is according to beliefs, which are results of experience. Life is seeking to find main origin to believe what believe satisfied our needs. Human entities have no choice to believe religion. Everyone has to discover believes worth living for, worth try, suffer, and lying for.( Dopuch, Nicholas, 1962)
Everyone cannot remain disinterested, world simply does not permit it. So everyone have to decide, work and have a religious believes. Experiences test ideas and believes, if the believes accord with experiences and work with beneficial result, believes and ideas will be accepted.( Huber Rytina, Joan and Loomis, Charles P. ,1970 )
Then with reason above pragmatists claim that a religious believe is more useful than non-religious thinking because it lead to result that is more beneficial.
If these issues are considered, the best features of pragmatism lies with its framework coupled with its opposition of extreme shapes of analytic scientism by which it has generated a collecting sense of conceptual cough practice. It makes shape, for that factor, a simple and natural connection between classic and continental science and philosophy, for hard practice is not principally in scientific knowledge. None of these movements expressed (which hardly integrated with each other) is wholly likely to remove its own limitations or combine and promote the best performance of the others in a speed method. however, within its own subjective atmosphere, pragmatism feature as a new realism design in as helpful way as possible from last philosophical school resources, freed of every state of epistemology, rational, and practical progressing, disagree with imagined possibilities and necessities and cognition, believe to the continuities of last knowledge and human culture, restricted to the existential and historical circumstances of the human being. It again in rational reason to plural, partial, imagined, contemporary, even non-integrated ways of thinking what may be analyzed valid within any and every sort of factual and rational relation. There are a well ive of reportorial distortion in moving beyond these conditions. however with considering risk of that, it would not be analogical to mention that pragmatists claim that the analysts are principlly to favor scientism and the empiricism, to exceed the main factor and bounds of realism, and that both theories are more unpractical or extreme than their policies condition. In this, naturally direct receive pragmatism"s strength places in the probability of methods by way of the reforms emphasized. It can never have explained such an advantage placed, had not the main work of assist and analytic philosophy compared so long in their obviously extra commitments.
"Still, pragmatism"s best intuitions have been applied to eliminating the extravagances of its Kantian sources (by Charles Peirce) and its Hegelian sources (by John Dewey) in such a way as to lead us back to the ordinary aptitudes human beings (ourselves) viewed within a generously Darwinized ecology, without transcendental or revelatory or privileged presumptions of any kind. Frankly, Dewey, despite his technical limitations (in logic and the methodology of science) did manage to penetrate the corrective themes in a commanding way in Experience and Nature.1* No other American philosopher, it seems, has succeeded as well, though his detailed treatment needs a stronger hand. No one would believe that we would be willing to bear so much conceptual baggage without complaint, were it not for the easy conviction that its argument was true; or, trust the good cheer with which analytic philosophy continues to ply a calling that belongs somewhere, in time, between the mid-seventeenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth.11 This is not, however, to allow the pragmatists to go scot free. They are themselves ob piously slack in their own reading of naturalism: they have hardly distinguished their own account from that of the "naturalizing". PRAGMATISM"S ADVANTAGE 207 extremes championed for instance by Quince and Davidson12 and they have never returned (pace G. H. Mead) to pursue in any significant depth the analysis of what a person is, or indeed what social history is. These themes belong to their post-Kantian ori gins, but they need to be rescued from analytic and continental excesses and pragmatist inertia."( Margolis, Joseph, 2004).

Critical evaluation of pragmatically relativism
In closing, the characteristics and weaknesses point of pragmatism are summarized and finally they are evaluated systematically. According to pragmatic philosophy, the priority of experience and practice is a major rule. Pragmatists believe that experiences form the theory and concept.
Some theories are useful for somebody and harmful for others. These theories maybe harmful in one period but they are useful in other time. These different results lead to relative thinking. The religious faith is accepted as well as results to beneficial outcomes. This criteria does not determine who benefit from appropriate results of religious faith. Ultimately pragmatic cognition leads to extreme relativism in many aspects.
The world and its parts are in permanent alteration and both of them are incomplete. One of the main concerns in pragmatism cognition is truth and its meaning. What are the correct criteria for finding true concept? The truth is what it has beneficial result in practice. In pragmatism idea, the truth is contemporary and passing matter. It is possible that truth can be contemporary in social science but in the natural science often it exist stable and permanent.
The main cause of this relativism is lack of obvious definition for variables and main principles. While pragmatic philosophy is applied with definite variable and distinct principles, the extreme relativism will be decreased.
"A good deal of recent work in the pragmatist tradition purports to be phenomenological in spirit or informed by the insights of phenomenology In light of the pragmatist tradition"s commitment to naturalism and the phenomenological tradition"s overt anti-naturalism, the question is whether this cross-traditional work is methodologically coherent. A background question, of course, is whether phenomenology is consistent with any naturalist program in the social sciences. I will argue here that a pragmatic naturalism is committed to epistemic and ontological naturalism and a broad form of humanism. Phenomenology is relevant to pragmatism"s humanism, but it is inconsistent with pragmatism"s epistemic and ontological naturalisms. Consequently, pragmatists face a dilemma: either they must reject the essentialist picture of pragmatism as naturalism or they must reject the phenomenological tradition as ant naturalistic. If they take the first horn of the dilemma, pragmatism as a Philosophical method becomes inscrutable. If they take the second horn of the dilemma, for better or worse, pragmatism becomes methodologically isolated from phenomenology, and in turn, that isolation must be attended to more carefully. Further, if the dilemma is right, pragmatists should be bound to answer phenomenologist"s" criticisms of naturalism, as those criticisms are at least implicitly criticisms of pragmatism. That is, if the reasons behind the phenomenological tradition"s anti-naturalism are right, then pragmatism is an incoherent philosophical program. Moreover, if the phenomenological tradition"s criticisms of naturalism are correct, then naturalists generally are also obliged to respond or revise accordingly." (Scott F, Aikin , 2006).

Conclusion
According to the facts, which were thoroughly mentioned above, that are to take a result that, pragmatism as a practical philosophy has a ive results in comparison with two philosophy schools, Idealism and Realism, this school is more effectiveness in scientific methods and research affairs rather than others. but regardless these positive point, it has some weaknesses as it is mentioned the main weakness in pragmatism school is its undetermined variables and indefinite principles that result to epistemological relativism and practicalism. With definition some main variable and principles in pragmatic framework, the pragmatism school can be a strong and useful method in research affairs.

References:

Armstrong, A. C.,1908, " The Evolution of Pragmatism" The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol. 5, No. 24 (Nov.19, 1908), pp. 645-650.
Cairncross, Frances, 1994" Environmental Pragmatism" Foreign Policy, No. 95 (summer, 1994), pp. 35-52

Caldwell, W.,1900, "Pragmatism" , Mind, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 36 (Oct., 1900), pp. 433-456

Dopuch, Nicholas, 1962,"Metaphysics of Pragmatism and Accountancy" The Accounting Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1962), pp. 251-262

Friedman, Randy L., 2007. "Traditions of Pragmatism and the Myth of the Emersonian Democrat", Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Winter, 2007), pp. 154-184.
Heelan, Patrick A. and SchulkinSource, Jay,1998" Hermeneutical Philosophy and Pragmatism: A Philosophy of Science" Synthese, Vol. 115, No. 3 (Jun., 1998), pp. 269-302

Huber Rytina, Joan and Loomis, Charles P. ,1970 "Marxist Dialectic and Pragmatism: Power as Knowledge" American Sociological Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1970), pp. 308-318

James, William,1906"Pragmatism "A New Name For Some Old Ways Of Thinking"
Edited by: Fredson Bowers, and Ignas K. Skrupskelis Publishing in motion: (February 17, 2011)

Koopman, Colin, 2007 "Language Is a Form of Experience: Reconciling Classical Pragmatism and Neopragmatism" Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Fall, 2007), pp. 694-727

LACHS, JOHN,2005." Stoic Pragmatism", The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, New Series, Vol. 19, No. 2 (2005), pp. 95-106.

Lawson, Fred H., 1992 " History and Pragmatism" Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Summer, 1992), pp. 106-109

Mac Gilvray, Eric, 1999. "Experience as Experiment: Some Consequences of Pragmatism for Democratic Theory", American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 542-565.
Margolis, Joseph, 2004. " Pragmatism"s Advantage" History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp. 201-222.
MOZUR, GERALD E., 1994" Half-Hearted Pragmatism" The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, New Series, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1994), pp. 247-261

Ormerod, R., 2006."The History and Ideas of Pragmatism" ,The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, No. 8 (Aug., 2006), pp. 892-909
Powell, Thomas C., 2003." Strategy without Ontology", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Mar., 2003), pp. 285-291.

Proctor, James D., 1998." The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and Critical Realist Responses", Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp.352-376.
Ramazani, R. K., 2004" Ideology and Pragmatism in Iran"s Foreign Policy "Middle East Journal, Vol. 58, No. 4 (autumn, 2004), pp. 549-559Published

Robinson, Viviane M. J.,1998,"Methodology and the Research-Practice Gap" Educational Researcher, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1998), pp. 17-26

Rochberg-Halton, Eugene,1987."Why Pragmatism Now?", Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 194-200.
Scott F, Aikin , 2006, " Pragmatism, Naturalism, and Phenomenology" , Human Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 2006), pp. 317-34.
Siemers, David J., 2004."Principled Pragmatism: Abraham Lincoln"s Method of Political Analysis", Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 804-827.
Smith, Steven D.,1990." The Pursuit of Pragmatism", the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100, No. 2 (Nov., 1990), pp. 409-449.
Tong, Shijun, 2006, "Critique" Immanent in "Practice": New Frankfurt School and American Pragmatism", Frontiers of Philosophy in China, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun. 2006), pp. 295-316.
Warfield Rawls, Anne, 1997, "Durkheim and Pragmatism: An Old Twist on a Contemporary Debate" Sociological Theory, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 5-29