Dissertation for acquiring the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the specialty 033 “Philosophy” (03 – Humanities). Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. – Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, 2022.
The dissertation is devoted to the analysis and critique of the main versions of pragmatic reconstruction of liberalism. The choice of dissertation topic is due to two circumstances. Firstly, until now, there have been no works within international pragmatic studies that have discriminated, compared, systematized, and evaluated all major versions of pragmatic approach to liberalism within a single theoretical whole. Secondly, the Ukrainian humanities have so far shown only sporadic interest in the political philosophy of pragmatism, in particular in the Ukrainian-language adaptation of English-language notions of pragmatism. This dissertation is an attempt to fill these research gaps and open new horizons of understanding in these areas.
The methodology of the dissertation included the use of conceptual analysis, comparative analysis, and critique. From the genre point of view, the dissertation research is carried out as a work in the field of history of ideas (Geistesgeschichte) and analytical philosophy. The main material for the research efforts was the original English-language works of such leading pragmatists as C. Peirce, W. James, J. Dewey, S. Hook, and R. Rorty, as well as the works of foreign and Ukrainian researchers of pragmatism. A number of historical-philosophical and analytical-philosophical tasks determined the structure of the dissertation, and their implementation helped to obtain results characterized by scientific novelty.
(1) The internal theoretical sources of the pragmatic reconstruction of liberalism were clarified. In the pragmatic tradition, founding fathers, such as Peirce and James, developed two specific lines of thought: romantic and scientific. They had a significant impact not only on further pragmatic epistemology or metaphysics, but also on pragmatic liberal theory, first introduced by Dewey, Hook, and Rorty.
(2) The ultimate philosophical basis of the main versions of the pragmatic reconstruction of liberalism was highlighted. Three distinct fundamental sub-movements were highlighted: Dewey’s naturalistic pragmatism, which synthesized Peirce’s and James’ ideas, Hook’s positivist neo-pragmatism, which followed Dewey’s views although adopted Peirce’s scientific accents, Rorty’s postmodernist neo-pragmatism, which radicalized James’ romantic intuitions.
(3) The specificit of the main versions of the pragmatic theory of liberalism was determined. The study established that in the pragmatic tradition, three unique versions of the pragmatic theory of liberalism were proposed: Dewey’s renascent liberalism, Hook’s realistic liberalism, and Rorty’s ironic liberalism. By relying on the above-mentioned fundamental sub-movements, each of the three versions of pragmatic liberalism included a specific understanding of the concepts of “freedom”, “authority”, “individuality”, and “the public.” A general feature of Rorty’s project was the attempt to dissolve structures, for example, to think of freedom as a purely negative concept, to consider the imagination as a source of political authority, and so on. While Hook was prone to an exaggerated reliance on structures, for example, not only to defend the positive concept of freedom, but also to support the rhetoric of a reasonable sacrifice of freedoms. In contrast, Dewey tried to avoid such extremes.
(4) Leading contemporary discussions on the validity of the main versions of the pragmatic reconstruction of liberalism were developed.The study interpreted the main arguments in the discussion on ironic liberalism between R. Bernstein and W. Curtis, and on realistic liberalism between M. Festenstein and R. Talisse. The weakness of Curtis’ thesis on the utility of ironic-liberal virtues was substantiated, and Bernstein's opinion on the relative nature of ironic liberalism was strengthened by critical consideration of the main concepts of ironic liberalism. Similarly, Talisse’s thesis on the benefits of deliberative virtues was undermined, and Festenstein’s position on the authoritarian tendencies of Talisse’s and Hook’s political philosophy was developed.
(5) The current prospects of pragmatic liberalism were outlined. The capability of the main versions of pragmatic liberalism to respond to such challenges of modern liberal society as identity crisis, informational crisis, and authoritarian crisis were established. In this regard, the inapplicability of Rorty’s ironic liberalism, the partial value of Hook’s realistic liberalism, and the perspectiveness of Dewey’s renascent liberalism were proven.
Keywords: American philosophy, philosophy of pragmatism, analytic philosophy, cosmology, epistemology, politics, reconstruction of liberalism, power, freedom, rationality, common sense, person, the public, relativism, absolutism.
