In the 1920s, John Dewey's followers in China, led by his student Hu Shih, attempted to put his pragmatism into practice in their quest for democracy. This essay compares Hu Shih's thought, especially his emphasis on pragmatism as method, with Dewey's philosophical positions and evaluates Hu's achievement as a pragmatist in the context of the tumultuous times he lived in. It assesses Hu's claim that the means to democracy lies in education rather than politics, since democracy as a way of (...) life requires a cultural renewal beyond institutional changes. It argues that a problem‐centered approach to social change does not preclude radical action, even revolution. But pragmatism is against gratuitous use of violence in the service of wholesale and abstract ideals advocated by various “isms.” While Hu's experiment of democracy in China is a significant episode in the history of pragmatism, its “failure” does not prove that there are inherent flaws in the pragmatist method, that pragmatism is unviable for China. The failure needs to be understood in the context of the pragmatist conception of experiment, in which failures are to be expected; what is important is to learn from them to achieve better results in the next stage of inquiry. Hu Shih's pragmatism contains lessons for pragmatists and for those interested in the continued quest for democracy in China—the experiment continues. (shrink)

In the current crisis of liberal democracy, Confucianism has been cited as offering superior alternative models of government. With the resources from Dewey’s Pragmatism, this paper defends democracy, which should not be equated to de facto liberal democracies, as desirable for Confucian societies. It examines the affinities between Confucian and Dewey’s conception of the person and community and argues for an understanding of democratic values that brings together Dewey’s democratic values and Confucian ideals of personal cultivation and virtuous governance.

James Good (2006) has recently made a compelling case for the claim that Dewey held Hegel's philosophy to be consistent with his own up until 1904.1 It is crucial to Good's argument that Dewey's Hegel-interpretation from the early 1890s until around the turn of the century be distinguished from the British metaphysical Neo-Hegelianism defended by F. H. Bradley and T. H. Green. Good also argues more generally, however, that Dewey never made a clean break with Hegel despite Dewey's several critical (...) remarks on Hegel's philosophy in later works.2 My aim is to investigate the basis for this general claim and particularly with regard to Dewey's outline of a social and political philosophy after his first public .. (shrink)

John Dewey viewed philosophy as an intelligent means of realizing change, emphasizing the ubiquity of process, context and relations. The revolution in Organizational Behavior known as Process Re-engineering (PR) is an approach to organizational thinking recognizing the importance of process, context and relations at all levels of organizational activity. Because Dewey’s philosophy affords primacy to process and change, context and relations, it is fundamentally aligned with PR. Compelling connections between PR and Dewey’s philosophy are established concerning primacy of process, importance (...) of context, inquiry as experimental, value dimensions of outcomes, work as a means to self-realization, and increasing recognition of the future as an open possibility. While Dewey’s philosophy and PR stand as examples of intelligent understanding and reconstruction of process, recent developments in formal systems ontology point to dangerous consequences resulting from an eclipse of the material conditions of experience through the imposition of a formal architectonic. (shrink)

One area of the East–West comparative philosophy that has received a good deal of attention in recent years is the relationship between Confucianism and American Pragmatism. Scholars engaging these traditions have argued that they are mutually elucidating and mutually reinforcing. Often, upon locating resonance between a Confucian philosopher and an American Pragmatist philosopher, scholars combine the conceptual resources of the two, developing a Confucian–Pragmatist hybrid concept or theory. Some critics have been skeptical of the alleged compatibility between Confucian and American (...) Pragmatism, holding that proper understanding of Confucian and American Pragmatist traditions reveals an unbridgeable incommensurability between the two. This article describes the state of the comparative scholarship on Confucianism and American Pragmatism, identifying thematic trends and areas of debate. In addition, some lines of scholarship that might augment this area of comparative philosophy are suggested. (shrink)