Dewey Pluralism Panel

Deweys conception that each inidivdual person is real and nature is real as well, the
experience of things not in nature are also still experiences. More on the playing
field, so much is on the table, and not excluded from the beginning. He has choices
and preferences, but even after you make choices and preferences you need to bring
it back to all the stuff on the table in order to test the,m.

Never be stagnant or plateau in your thought, its not just that we are going to
consider a whole plethora of things, and within all these uncertainties,

We experience things and synthesize them in our minds but we need to bring it back
to nature and our experience of the world.

How is this different from other philosophies and theologies, where he is paying
attention and conceiving as many things as possible as real.
Dewey does not provide like other philosophies one distinct structure, he knows
man wants a structure and a path, an answer, but Dewey doesn’t try and do that.
There is nothing for him which is the ready made real, with all the other stuff being
ulimatley unreal. Throws a lot more responsibility on our shoulders on seeking
stability.

He is saying – lets consider verything being real, most philosopehrs immediately

seek to define what is not real.

HEs not quite as pluralistic as James in saying oh if it passes the triple pragmatic test
it fine, but he emphasizes and seeks stability,

CRITIQUE – he is giving us the framework but doesn’t provide case studies or

examples.

Aberrations and perversions that he considers to be dangerous, these aberattions

exist in mind and consciousness has a responsibility to do something about those
things. Statement about therapy and education, we need to be adults and adapt to
the circumstances with the particular values Dewey has such as stability.

He removes fmo the table claims to the ‘really real,’ which are enormous points of
conflict. Removes the potential for the “conversation stopper”

HE wants to connect his ideas to daily life (Quote 2) and to wha’ts going on around
us, an integrity in the workings of daily life inherent integrity in the means. He
doesn’t talk about death

Writing from within our experiencing, not looking for a netural birds eye view or
overarching conception
CONTRASTS WITH PLURALISM

Quote 4 – interested in reconceptualizing and imagining the purpose of philosophy

(in juxtaposition with Quote 2 in the first section)

We need to evaluate the conditions and consequences, and the specificity of what
inovled and what the values are in that critique is a lot more specific than James.
James is mreo broad. Characteristics likes tability for Dewey makes It a lot more
focused and directional, what counts as intelligent, whats valuable, his ends are
much narrower than James’s. He is much less tolerant, looking at last chapter, he
would deem someone as instable and therefor a concern, whereas James would say,
if that works for you that’s ok. Need immediate luminousness that will supplant
whats philsophcially reasonable and provide something morally helpful.
He would deem Goerge Fox to be a result of malco-ordinations, fizations,
abberattions, he is not tolerant of those aberations because he sees a lot of social
harm that comes out of them. Much more pejorative language. The harm and child
labor that comes out of these fixations. Is James more insulated from this? James
himself went under mental aberations.

James perhaps less optimistic about the modification and control of desires and
value, for Dewey we can educate. For James there is no normal that we have to agree
upon.

Looking at quote 3 “We bring to the simplest” very James, accepting habits, pg 219
This is the 2nd part of the triple pragmatic test. For Dewey this is really really central
because otherwise you get a blank star,e but for James this is one of three! For James
there is something so luminous at times

Dewey is more open to using poetic and pejorative language, but James is less close
to speaking in those terms, lunatic for example,

PROBLEMS WUTH PLURALISM IN DEWEY

Kicking people out the room, no room for faith in things, have to have empirical
evidence,
Two tendenciesi n Dewey – invlusive, everything is part of our experience, art,
music
And then there is the critical function, the educational, the stable, it excludes so
much from having a beneficial function, rendered a “castle in the air” (227)

Makes us ownder if art can be so valuable, and is a valuable for us gaining value,
merging the new and the old, then why is it that other imagining cant.
Looking back to quote 3 in section 1, he says magic an dmyth have equal value to
empirical evidene, and yet later he says none of that could be sueful. He cant
conceive ueful order coming out of myths and stories. Arguably a lacking potential,
Throws away these thigns as not socially constructive, if he is opening up everything
to scrutiny, he should also deem thema s of coming out as socially valuable. HE
seems to have left some thing sbehind, including the religious. Potential in beginning
chapters that is perhaps lost