Introduction to the Special Issue on Pragmatism in China
Full text
1The papers collected in this special issue derive from The International Workshop on Classical Pragmatism, a conference held by the School of Philosophy, Shanxi University (China), in September 2023. This is one of the few offline international conferences on pragmatism held by the Chinese academic community after the end of COVID-19. Those who attended the conference were seven well-known international experts in pragmatism research from St. Ambrose University (US), The College of Worcester (US), McMaster University (Canada), Università degli Studi Roma Tre (Italy), Università degli Studi del Molise (Italy), Università degli Studi di Milano (Italy), Waseda University (Japan), as well as more than a dozen Chinese scholars from Fudan University, Nankai University, Beijing Normal University, Beijing Forestry University, Tianjin Foreign Studies University and Shanxi Normal University, etc. It was an excellent opportunity for scholars from China and the international academic community to have a profound and fruitful discussion on the key topics of pragmatism. At the conference, Professor Rosa Maria Calcaterra and Professor Giovanni Maddalena, who were invited to participate in this workshop, proposed to edit an EJPAP special issue to show the international academic community some aspects of recent research on pragmatism in China. Therefore, we invited revisions to those Chinese scholars who had submitted their papers to the workshop, especially those who had presented their research at the conference. Having passed the double-blind peer reviews, a total of seven papers by Chinese scholars were finally accepted by EJPAP.
2This special issue aims to explore the research on American pragmatist philosophy in contemporary China, from Charles Peirce and William James on belief to Hilary Putnam’s revival or revitalization of Jamesian pragmatism, and even to the research on Richard Rorty’s neo-pragmatism and Richard Bernstein’s philosophy in China nowadays. A paper by Xuefu Shen, making a glimpse of the later Putnam’s academic activities close to James, inquires about his revitalization of Jamesian pragmatism from three aspects: (1) James’s Pragmatic Theory of Truth; (2) four kinds of strains and two kinds of truths in James’s mind; and (3) James’s natural realism of commonsense. Putnam firmly believes that classical pragmatism provides us with the most progressive and up-to-date philosophical framework on which contemporary philosophical thinking may depend. The paper explores the later Putnam’s vigorous defense of numerous creative views in Jamesian philosophy. The later Putnam places classical pragmatism in the landscape of contemporary debates and participates personally in them as a James-style natural realist.
3The following paper by Boya Geng focuses on Charles Peirce and William James’ elaborations on belief and its meaning, their relationship, and their influence on later pragmatists, which contributes to further understanding the pragmatist conception of belief and draws on them to improve contemporary theories of belief. The author argues that Peirce’s general normative formula for the meaning of belief is that obeying the pattern of scientific inquiry if we perform the operation R on the referenced object of the belief, we would then conceive effect E, which might conceivably have practical bearing P. The paper also suggests that James’ ultimate formula for the meaning of belief is that by obeying the pattern of scientific inquiry and having the right to take individual passive experience into account, if we perform the operation R on the referenced object of the belief, then it produces practical particular consequence C; if there is no practical particular consequence C, then it is not the meaning of the belief. In summary, the paper concludes by reflecting on the differences, similarities, and influences of Peirce’s and James’ notions on belief and its meaning.
4Jing Zhou and Du Cheng’s contribution to this issue by revisiting Charles Peirce’s pragmatism is also focused on a pragmatic interpretation of a classical approach to pragmatism in a more scientific spirit. The two authors believe that (1) Peirce’s idea that pragmatism is a method for understanding the meaning of concepts based on practical effects has some traces of psychologism; (2) Peirce later rejected the idea of understanding the meaning of concepts based on individual actions and mental feelings; (3) Peirce emphasizes that pragmatism is a logical method based on normative sciences; (4) Peirce focuses on understanding the meaning of signs rather than conceptions presupposing the action of signs. The paper concludes that Peirce’s final project on pragmatism is anti-psychological and emphasizes the scientific exploration of the community to analyze universal phenomena and pursue a more scientific pragmatism.
5The following paper by Ming Dong and Chengbing Wang inquires into the difference between Peircean and Deweyan interpretations of the concept of inquiry. The two authors believe that, from an epistemological point of view, Peirce regarded inquiry as the process of belief changing from an uncertain state to a certain one. At the same time, Dewey developed the concept of inquiry and endowed it with an existential meaning. Inquiry is a functional product yielded in dealing with the real world, and it is a transition from epistemology to existentialism. Three more aspects are explicitly explored in the paper: habits are stable patterns of temporarily fixed behaviors, impulses are the primary drive for inquiry, and intelligence is an effective way to deal with new problems and make the experience more controllable.
6With Yafeng Dang’s contribution to this special issue, we put classical pragmatism aside to explore, mainly from two aspects, the stipulation of human being’s finite existence by Richard Bernstein’s ontological inquiries: Descartes’ finite man appeals to the infinite God for the stipulation of his finite existence, and he seeks survival comfort by relying on God’s protection; Gadamer’s finite man pulls the stipulation of his finite existence back to man himself, and he seeks survival and comfort in the way that his existence belongs to history. The paper argues that Bernstein inherited Gadamer’s understanding of human existence and understood the stipulation of human beings’ finite existence as the practical activity of the historical intermediary of universal freedom, thus clarifying the stipulation of human beings’ finite existence.
7The special issue continues with Jiaying Meng and Jianhua Mei’s discussion of a pragmatic challenge to scientific physicalism by exploring the relationship between mind and nature in contemporary philosophy. Contrary to the dominant view that everything in scientific physicalism is physical and that all phenomena can be fully understood through natural science, the paper presents a different view, based on the position in common sense physicalism holding that the world is constituted at a fundamental level by human beings and their associated macro-physical phenomena. The authors think that scientific physicalists rely solely on scientific explanations, particularly those offered by medical materialism or neuroscience, and that this stance on common sense physicalism resonates with pragmatist philosophers like William James, revealing the limitations of neuroscience when explaining religious experience. The paper suggests a fuller understanding of such phenomena may be achieved by examining religious experience through everyday experience and perception.
8The last paper published in this special issue provides Zilong Liu’s review of studies on Richard Rorty’s philosophy in China since the 21st century. The author believes that the survey covers many aspects: (1) Rorty’s neo-pragmatism mainly includes anti-essentialism, view of truth, and philosophy of dialogue; (2) Rorty has edified philosophy and post-philosophical culture; (3) the application and revelation of Rorty’s philosophy in political science, ethics and literary aesthetics reveals the interdisciplinary value of his thought; and (4) scholars have further highlighted the uniqueness of Rorty’s philosophy and its significance in the history of philosophy.
9Since John Dewey visited China in 1919, pragmatist philosophy has been disseminated and studied in China for more than 100 years. And since the beginning of the 21st century, pragmatism research in China has entered a prosperous stage. In the context of contemporary academics, Chinese scholars have done more in-depth and detailed studies on the core issues of pragmatism, undertaken many scientific research projects, and published many excellent books and papers. The translation and publication of the literature on classical pragmatism have made significant progress as well: The Chinese version of Collected Works of John Dewey (37 volumes) has been published by East China Normal University Press; the translation of Philosophical Works of William James (10 volumes) has been completed, and the Chinese version published by The Commercial Press is forthcoming soon. In recent years, the academic exchanges and cooperations on pragmatism between Chinese and international scholars have reached unprecedented frequency and research content. In 1984, Hilary Putnam visited China and lectured at Beijing University and Fudan University. Since 2000, many other pragmatist philosophers, such as Richard Rorty, Richard Bernstein, and Robert Brandom, have visited China. Roger Ames, an expert in pragmatism research, came to China and worked at Peking University full-time.
10In a certain sense, the publication of these papers in EJPAP itself is one part of the international cooperation in pragmatism research and an attempt by Chinese scholars to promote their research on pragmatism to the international academic community. Most of this special issue’s authors are young scholars with good philosophical training and promising international academic visions. Many of them studied in Western universities before and have excellent capabilities in international academic exchanges and conversions. They are not only the leading talents in pragmatism research in China but also the leading group in international cooperation on pragmatism in China. All the authors will take this cooperation as an opportunity to seek new ways of cooperative research actively and further develop and promote international cooperation on pragmatism research in China.
11Finally, we must admit that most of the papers selected focus on research on pragmatism itself, neither related to comparative studies of pragmatism and Chinese philosophy nor from an interdisciplinary or comprehensive perspective, specifically concerned with contemporary issues on pragmatism. This is due to the limited number of papers allowed for this special issue and the limited scope of the paper selection. We hope to have more opportunities to promote this in the future.
12The preparation of this special issue took more than a year, from paper collection to the completion of editing. We want to thank Professor Rosa Maria Calcaterra, Professor Giovanni Maddalena, and especially EJPAP for providing us with such a good opportunity to collect papers, as well as for their guidance and help in the editing process; we would also like to thank all the authors, the anonymous reviewers, and the colleagues and friends who provided language polishing service in English.
References
Electronic reference
Xuefu Shen and Chengbing Wang, “Introduction to the Special Issue on Pragmatism in China”, European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy [Online], XVII-1 | 2025, Online since 24 April 2025, connection on 12 June 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/4667; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/13t9h
Top of pageCopyright
The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.
Top of page