Currently, one of the most important points of contention in defining contemporary pragmatistm arises from the challenge posed to pragmatism's traditional naturalist orientation by Robert Brandom's rationalist pragmatism. This paper compares the two positions, suggesting that the argument between them revolves around the role of language (rather than experience, as is frequently asserted)—more specifically, around the role of systematicity and formal analysis in our conceptions of rational inquiry and discourse. The paper suggests that Brandom's approach may be more suited to a retrospective integration and assessment of the rational learning processes, as opposed to the anticipation of their prospective dimension usually emphasized by the naturalist pragmatism; moreover, that it seems most appropriate in learning contexts that depend on the continued transmission of epistemic authority open to rational correction, and may not be suited for the conceptualization of the less formally structured domains of discourse.

中文翻译：

---

理性、语言、历史：实用主义有争议的承诺

当前，界定当代实用主义最重要的争论点之一，是罗伯特·布兰登的理性主义实用主义对实用主义传统自然主义取向的挑战。. 本文比较了这两种立场，表明它们之间的争论围绕着语言的作用（而不是经常断言的经验）——更具体地说，围绕着系统性和形式分析在我们的理性探究和话语概念中的作用。这篇论文表明，布兰登的方法可能更适合于对理性学习过程的回顾性整合和评估，而不是自然主义实用主义通常强调的对其前瞻性维度的预期；此外，它似乎最适合于依赖于持续传递认知权威以进行理性修正的学习环境，并且可能不适合于结构较不正式的话语领域的概念化。