Utilizing a characterization of pragmatism drawn from Joseph Margolis, and with reference to the thought of C. S. Peirce and John Dewey, this paper first exposes a pragmatist conception of rationalitywithin the French philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. It then explores how this praxical, biologically rooted understanding of rationality leads Merleau-Ponty to espouse the same broadly pragmatistconception of ethical life that we find in arecent work from Joseph Margolis: one that repudiates fixed principles and absolute ends in order to prompt us, (...) under the pressing exigencies of life, to learn from radically different ways of thinking, thus committing us to negotiating peaceful solutions to our moral and political conflicts across diverse rational perspectives in a manner that, although taking us far from any form of objectivism, nevertheless refuses to renounce all claims to objectivity. (shrink)

Utilizing a characterization of pragmatism drawn from Joseph Margolis, and with reference to the thought of C. S. Peirce and John Dewey, this paper first exposes a pragmatist conception of rationality within the French philosophy of Maurice Merleau‐Ponty. It then explores how this praxical, biologically rooted understanding of rationality leads Merleau‐Ponty to espouse the same broadly pragmatist conception of ethical life that we find in a recent work from Joseph Margolis: one that repudiates fixed principles and absolute ends in order (...) to prompt us, under the pressing exigencies of life, to learn from radically different ways of thinking, thus committing us to negotiating peaceful solutions to our moral and political conflicts across diverse rational perspectives in a manner that, although taking us far from any form of objectivism, nevertheless refuses to renounce all claims to objectivity. (shrink)

I offer a few thoughts about Nancy Stanlick's recently published monograph, American Philosophy: The Basics. While I take issue with a few details, such as a remark made about John Dewey’s understanding of metaphysics, I end with a note of appreciation. Stanlick’s decision to include ideas from sources not usually included in a philosophy book, whether one agrees with it or not, challenges readers to rethink, in a fresh and healthy way, what philosophy is and how it should be practiced.