Neopragmatism
Belief that the meaning of words is a result of how they are used
Neopragmatism is a philosophical position developed by the American philosopher Richard Rorty. It is pragmatist in that it is influenced by the classical pragmatism of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, while also incorporating the insights of the analytic philosophy which ended up superseding that movement, hence the "neo-" in its name.
Neopragmatism was originally developed by Rorty in his influential book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979). In this book, Rorty argues that philosophy as traditionally conceived, i.e. as a sort of supreme court of reason overlooking the rest of culture, has become obsolete, having reached an impasse in analytic philosophy, and so philosophy must instead become a more interpretive and culturally relevant discipline if it is to have any relevance at all.
The main lesson to be learned from the classical pragmatists, according to Rorty, is that there is no difference in theory which makes no difference in practice, a sentiment which can be traced all the way back to Peirce's formulation of his pragmatic maxim, and this sentiment is largely the defining characteristic which unites neopragmatists from across the philosophical spectrum.
Another notable philosopher who identified as a neopragmatist later in his career was Hilary Putnam. While Donald Davidson, who was a major influence on and close friend of Rorty, never publicly identified as a pragmatist in any sense, he did notice that his views did not differ that much from Rorty's, with there being more difference between them in terms of style and attitude. The following contemporary philosophers are also often considered to be neopragmatists: Nicholas Rescher (a proponent of methodological pragmatism and pragmatic idealism), Jürgen Habermas, Susan Haack, Robert Brandom, and Cornel West (the latter two being Rorty's students at Princeton).
Background
Classical pragmatism
Neopragmatists, particularly Rorty and Putnam, draw on the ideas of the classical pragmatists, namely Peirce, James, and Dewey.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Neopragmatism” as belief that the meaning of words is a result of how they are used. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as belief that the meaning of words is a result of how they are used. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 23, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q3292620. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1979.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Neopragmatism”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Neopragmatism primary sources, Neopragmatism archive and Neopragmatism research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Neopragmatism”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Neopragmatism” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.