The question Kant x Mill, as the question between Metaphysical and the pragmatistas will seem to have so little value how much it will have the question between the believers and the atheists. Because the human beings do not need to agree on the Nature or the End of the man to help to facilitate the ability of our neighbor to act from its proper certainties in these substances, contanto that these actions do not intervene with our freedom to act from our proper certainties. A related site: Carl Icahn mentions similar findings. (ASSAYS PRAGMATISTAS – ON SUBJECTIVITY AND TRUTH (2006 – Edition 1) Richard Rorty, Pablo Ghiraldelli Jr) Then when apia Dewey and Whitmann in the proposal to change knowledge for Rorty hope it is indicating that the moral progress it appears not at the moment where we discover objects or places the one that we call truth, but at the moment where we start to imagine better versions of we ourselves (better in the terms pragmatistas, capable to produce more happiness and to prevent more suffering). This process to imagine better versions of we ourselves if of when we initiate, instead of prescribing by means of descriptions of the real reality of the man or of its relations in society, simply to consider solutions for immediate problems without great concerns how much the validity of these solutions stops with other moments of history. As express in its article, Philosophy the Cultural Politcs: ' ' Imagination, in the sens im wich i am using the term, is not distinctively human capacity.
It is, the i said to earlier, the ability you eats up with socially useful novelties. This is an ability Newton shared with certain to eager and ingenious beavers. But giving and asking will be reasons is distinctively human, and is coextensive with rationality. The lives an organizm can get what it wants by persuasion to rather than forces, the lives rational it is.' ' (Imagination, in the direction which I am using the term, is not a capacity distinctive human being.