Neuropragmatic Reconstruction, Not Transcendental Reconciliation: A Response to Pihlström’s “Pragmatism as a Mediator—Seeking an Illusory Harmony?”

Abstract I argue that Pihlström’s advocacy of both/and mediation is inadequate for making sense of contemporary difficulties, such as racism vs. antiracism and democracy vs. antidemocracy. This is due to an unwarranted equivocation between two incompatible kinds of rapprochement , reconciliation and reconstruction. In challenging Pihlström to get over James and on to Dewey and beyond, I propose neither/nor reconstruction instead of both/and reconciliation. I suggest that the former fits with neuropragmatism, while the latter with transcendental pragmatism. From this, I challenge Pihlström’s appeal to James’s hope for an eternal moral order. I appeal instead to Dewey’s sense of reconstruction’s task as creating a new moral order. Through neuropragmatism’s emphasis on reconstruction, there is hope that rapprochement is possible, without unthinkable compromises.