The Different Theories of Truth Three Brothers (Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey)
Abstract
The theory of truth is that truth statements consist of practical consequences, especially in agreement with subsequent experience. The purpose of this study is to discuss the different theories of truth proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey. This study uses a qualitative methodology that uses the analysis of this research article to reveal the basic theories and differences from each expert as they are known as pragmatic researchers with their theories of truth. This paper is intended to explore and provide different pragmatic theories of the three truths by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey. This reward research to see that results from differences in the theory of truth by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey which results in that Peirce is often associated with the idea that true beliefs are those who will stand the test in the future; James with the idea that true trust is reliable and also beneficial; while Dewey with that idea claims of ownership are verified (or "valuation"). Therefore, expecting further research is to find the effects of different theories of truth from the three experts in various contexts.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Almeder, R. (1986). A definition of pragmatism. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3(1), 79-87.
Armstrong, A. C. (1909, July). The Evolution of Pragmatism. In Bericht über den III. Internationalen Kongress für Philosophie (pp. 720-726).
Capps, J. (2017). A Pragmatic Argument for a Pragmatic Theory of Truth. contemporary pragmatism, 14(2), 135-156.
Capps, J. (2019). Pragmatic theory of truth.
da Costa, N. C. (1989). Logic and pragmatic truth. In Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (Vol. 126, pp. 247-261). Elsevier.
Dewey, J. (1916). The pragmatism of Peirce. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 13(26), 709-715.
Ezorsky, G. (1967). Pragmatic theory of truth.
Feng, C. H. E. N. (2005). On the Development of Pragmatic Theory of Truth. Journal of Hanzhong Teachers College, (1), 9.
Hamuddin, B. (2012). A comparative study of politeness strategies in economic journals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Malaya).
Herdi, H. (2014). The Abilities in Applying Verb Tenses in Writing Sentence Using Mixed Model. ELT-Lectura, 1(1).
Hollinger, D. A. (1980). The problem of pragmatism in American history. The Journal of American History, 67(1), 88-107.
http://dyrahadi.blogspot.com/2015/03/fundamentals-of-pragmatics.html
http://eprints.uny.ac.id/9086/3/bab%202-07211144028.pdf
James, W., Burkhardt, F., & Thayer, H. S. (1975). Pragmatism (Vol. 1). Harvard University Press.
Kirkham, RL (1992). Theory of truth: A critical introduction.
Menand, L. (1997). Pragmatism: A reader.
Misak, C. (2002). Truth, politics, morality: Pragmatism and deliberation. Routledge.
Ormerod, R. (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(8), 892-909.
Quan-hua, W. U. (2003). The Educational Inspiration of the Pragmatic Theory of Truth. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), (1), 14.
Rorty, R. (2000). Pragmatism. International Journal of psycho-analysis, 81(4), 819-823.
Snarey, J., & Olson, P. (2003). Article review of the pragmatism of the Founding Brothers. Journal of Moral Education, 32 (1), 91-95.
Soames, S. (1984). What is a Theory of Truth?. The Journal of Philosophy, 81(8), 411-429.
Soames, S. (1984). What is Truth Theory? The Journal of Philosophy, 81 (8), 411-429.
Suckiel, E. K. (1982). The pragmatic philosophy of William James.
Suckiel, EK (1982). William James's pragmatic philosophy.
Van Fraassen, B. (1988). The pragmatic theory of explanation. Theories of Explanation, 135-155.
White, H. (2010). William James’s Pragmatism. Ethics and The Individualism of Others. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 2(II-1).
Williams, M. (2010). Pragmatism, minimalism, expressivism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 18(3), 317-330.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v7i2.1046
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 Novia S. Silalahi, Avivah A. Putri, Indah K. Sianturi, Aprillia Chasanah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright CC-BY- SA.
©DEAS: Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-SA 4.0)