From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am the author both of the Wikipedia page on "Neopragmatism" and of the content at

Please restore the Wikipedia entry. I am the copyright holder and the owner of

David Hildebrand

POV + OR[edit]

All due respect, sir, but your views on what pragmatists believe aren't widely held. Neopragmatism is not fundamentally a linguistic thesis. I must remember to come back and fix this article at some future date. KSchutte 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatism isn't Neopragmatism. Neopragmatism is a very broad characterization, and Hildebrand's thesis about it being a return to the theoretical/linguistic approach is well-documented if probably not applicable to all neopragmatism (I mean, finding a common denominator for later Rorty and Quine is nigh impossible, except that they are both influenced by pragmatism but diverge from it - hence 'neo'). So, in my opinion, this article does need to be expanded and nuanced, but the information that is available now is not in any way fundamentally wrong as far as I can see. It is just very limited. By the way, Hildebrand's views in Beyond Realism & Anti-Realism are actually way more complete than what he presents here. Stdbrouw 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious cleanup needed[edit]

I knew nothing of neopragmatism, coming here by way of a wikilink from Positivism. After reading this article, I believe I know even less than I did before. This is an incoherent mess. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)