Neopragmatism as Lebensphilosophie
This article analyzes the modern American pragmatism as “uniform in its diversity” movement of the philosophical thought. The author reveals the differences between neopragmatism and classical pragmatism, the key of which consists in transformation of representation of the American philosophers on the specificity of their discipline, purpose of philosophy, and its role within the system of sciences. The classics, such as C. S. Peirce, J. Dewey, C. I. Lewis, referring to instrumental success and practical orientation of natural science, viewed the contemporary to them technoscience as a model for the philosophical research, while the neopragmatists rely on the cultural studies and hermeneutics. The problems of substantiation of knowledge, verification, logical analysis, scientific experimental proof/disproof of hypotheses, which drew the interest of the classics of pragmatism, are being replaced with the problematic of dialogue, interpretation, and social communication. The associated with it “communological trend” of neopragmatism found drastic reflection in ethnocentrism of R. Rorty. The author highlights the characteristic features and trends in the development of nonclassical pragmatism in the United States and Europe, as well as assesses its current state is assessed. prospects. The conclusion is made on the substantial heuristic potential of pragmatist tradition and possibilities of its effective convergence with other philosophical trends and schools: as “method of settling disputes” (W. James), neopragmatism considering the demand for its ideas and growing popularity among the European philosophers, can make certain contribution to the convergence and mutual enrichment of the Anglo-American analytical and continental philosophy, as well as overcoming the schism between the two intellectual traditions.