Neither “Mind” nor “ftings” but Acting: Some Philosophical Implications of Pragmatism for International  Relations Inquiry

doi:10.18566/apolit.v6n11.a02

PDF

Published: 2016-12-15

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18566/apolit.v6n11.a02

How to Cite

PABLO. (2016). Neither “Mind” nor “ftings” but Acting: Some Philosophical Implications of Pragmatism for International Relations Inquiry. Analecta política, 6(11), 227-248. https://doi.org/10.18566/apolit.v6n11.a02

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Societal impact

Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar , Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar

Abstract

Research in the discipline of International Relations (IR) has been dominated by positivism. Positivist philosophy of science has been useful in the conduct of inquiry but it has come at a cost: Cartesian anxiety. ftat is, the pursuit of absolute certainty, with the demanding assumptions such an ambitious goal entails. In light of these questionable standards, pragmatism is presented as a promising alternative. A pragmatist approach rejects the search for ‘truth’ and instead proposes a focus on ‘warranted assertibility’. As such, it takes the preliminary character of knowledge seriously. Consequently, it is argued that pragmatism can address the shortcomings posed by positivism. By so doing, this exercise makes a call for pluralism, not a new orthodoxy.

Keywords:

Positivism, Pragmatism, International Relations, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science

Author Biography

, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar

Máster en Administración Pública por la London School of Economics and Political Science y Candidato a doctor en Estudios del Desarrollo por el International Institute of Social Studies de la Universidad Erasmus de Rotterdam. Profesor del Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales (IAEN), de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE) e Investigador Asociado de la Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Sede Ecuador (UASB).

References

Ayer, A. (1959). Editor’s Introduction. In A. Ayer (ed.), Logical Positivism (pp. 3-30).

Glencoe, US: The Free Press.

Bacon, M. (2012). Pragmatism, an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Realism: science hermeneutics and praxis.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Caldwell, B. (1994). Beyond Positivism. Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century.

New York, US: Routledge.

Cochran, M. (2002). Deweyan Pragmatism and Post-Positivist Social Science. IR. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 31(1), 525-548.

Cochran, M. (2012). Pragmatism in International Relations: A story of Closure and Opening. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 4(1), 138-158.

Comte, A. (2009). A General View of Positivism. New York, US: Cambridge University Press.

Dewey, J. (1985). The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924 (Vol. 12). Carbondale, US: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dewey, J. (2008a). The Later Works of John Dewey 1925-1953 (Vol. 4). Carbondale, US: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dewey, J. (2008b). The Later Works of John Dewey 1925-1953 (Vol. 5). Carbondale, US: Southern Illinois University Press.

Descartes, R. (1956). Discourse on Method. New York: Pearson.

Descartes, R. (1993). Meditations on first philosophy (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, US: Hackett Publishing Company

Dicker, G. (1998). Hume’s Epistemology and Metaphysics: an introduction. New York, US: Routledge

Feilzer, M. (2010). Doing Mixed Methods Research Pragmatically: Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.

Friedrichs, J. (2009). From Positivist Pretense to Pragmatic Practice, varieties of Pragmatic Methodology in IR Scholarship. International Studies Review, 11, 645-648.

Friedrichs, J., & Kratochwil, F. (2009). On acting and Knowing: how pragmatism can advance International Relations research and methodology. International Organization, 63, 701-731.

Jackson, P. (2011). The Conduct of inquiry in International Relations, philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. New York, US: Routledge

James, W. (1977). The Writings of William James: A Comprehensive Edition (J. J. McDermott, Ed.). London: University of Chicago Press.

Kaboub, F. (2008). Positivist Paradigm. In F. Leong (ed.), Encyclopedia of Counseling (p. 785).

King, G., Keohane, R., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. New Jersey, US: Princeton University Press.

Kratochwil, F. (2007). Of False Promises and Good Bets: a plea for a pragmatic approach to theory building (the Tartu lecture). Journal of International Relations and Development, 10, 1-15.

Kratochwil, F. (2011). Ten points to ponder about Pragmatism. In H. Bauer & E. Brighi (eds.), Pragmatism in International Relations (pp. 11-25). New York, US: Routledge.

Krauss, S. (2005). Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer. The Qualitative

Report, 10(4), 758-770.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago, US: University of Chicago Press.

Menand, L. (1997). Pragmatism: A Reader. New York: Vintage Books.

Misak, C. (Ed.) (2007). New Pragmatists. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Misak, C. (2013). The American Pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.

Peirce, C. (1905). What Pragmatism is. The Monist, 15(2), 161-181.

Popper, K. (2002a). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, US: Routledge.

Popper, K. (2002b). Conjectures and Refutations. New York, US: Routledge.

Quine, W. (1980). From a Logical Point of View: 9 Logico-philosophical Essays (2nd ed.).

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Quinton, A. (2010). Inquiry, thought and action: John Dewey’s theory of knowledge. In R.S. Peters (ed.), John Dewey Reconsidered (pp. 1-11). New York, US: Routledge.

Riley, D. (2007). The Paradox of Positivism. Social Science History, 31(1), 115-126.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. New Jersey, US: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, A. (1993). Hume and the philosophy of science. In D. Norton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hume (pp. 64-89). New York, US: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and Beyond. In S. Smith, K. Booth & M. Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 11-44). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J-P. (2010). Mis-measuring Our Lives, why GDP doesn’t add up. The Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. London, UK: The New Press.

Suppe, F. (1977). Afterword. In F. Suppe (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories (2nd ed., pp. 617-730). Urbana, US: University of Illinois Press.

Talisse, R., & Aikin, S. (2011). Introduction. In R. Talisse & S. Aikin (eds.), The Pragmatism Reader (pp. 4-11). New Jersey, US: Princeton University Press.

Uebel, T. (2014). Logical Empiricism. In M. Curd & S. Psillos (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (2nd ed., pp. 90-103). New York, US: Routledge.

Waugh, J., & Ariew, R. (2008). The History of philosophy and the philosophy of science. In M. Curd & S. Psillos (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (2nd ed., pp. 27-38). New York, US: Routledge.

Article Sidebar