Did rejection of metaphysics by US Pragmatists flow from Kant's thesis abt the unknowability aspect of things?

Question

Kant thought we humans can only know the appearances of things that exist but not the essences(true natures) of the things behind those appearances.

This is a Q in Metaphysics aka Theories of Reality. Please, I prefer A's in your own words.

Answer 1

I don't think you can overestimate the influence of Kant's rejection of standard metaphysics on Pragmatist thought, in particular on C.S. Peirce who, despite his criticisms of Kant's logic, studied Kant's Critique of Pure Reason throughout his entire life, and developed ideas that were very much in line with Kant's transcendental idealism.

Answer 2

Pragmatism arose as a reply to skeptism. James, Dewey, Schiller and, to a certain extent Santayana Acknowledge that we cannot be sure about anything but for them what works is what is real. And why not? Skeptism can be nihilistic at worst and incapacitating at best. Pragmatism takes us away from that short of World View and asks what works best, how can knowledge be best utilised? It is eminently more sensible than going in circles trying to find out under what conditions X is true.

Answer 3

Do not put this trend down to Kant himself, for there are other authors that also made for it. Take for example those who opposed Einstein in his pretension to give account for natural phenomena. This trend is drawn upon the limits of science and that of philosophy. The task of science is to put forward mathematical equations that would save phenomena whereas philosophy's is to give account for them. From a scientific point of view it does not really matter whether we can explain certain occurrences insofar our mathematical expedients are accurate in terms of pragmatism and utility. We might not be able to give account for gravity or other natural processes if we can pinpoint certain regularities that take place in the world. This is what science is all about.

Here I would adhere myself to this trend, not that I would agree with today's us pragmatics and its rejection to fundamental research, for it is impossible to go any further without an accurate map of the research field we are into. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to learn from experience without any clear idea of what we are seeing and the way it works.