the philosopher john smith died a couple of days ago. i knew him slightly, from society for the advancement of american philosophy meetings, while i was still a grad student and he was an eminence. he was much beloved as a human being and as a thinker, whereas often it seems like you've got to choose one or the other. 

he's one of a few people that kept the peirce/james/royce/dewey/santayana trad alive in the american academy during a kind of dark age 9For this kind of philosophy) between the rise of analytic philosophy in the thirties and forties and the rorty-type neo-pragmatism of the eighties. (the great john mcdermott is another such figure.) one of the problems with analytic philosophy - and, actually, with several kinds of philosophy, though perhaps not with pragmatism - is that it tries to kill its enemies: the analytic folks were and sometimes are all about how what other kinds of philosophers say isn't philosophy, or is literally meaningless, etc. [if you want my assessment, both these traditions are necessary; neither is sufficient.]

rorty emerged out of the anlytic mode and tried to open things up. but the fact that he became world famous for his revival of pragmatism was, i rather hate to say it, a source of bitterness to the people who never left. not only that, but smith, mcdermott, and their like had a much, much better grasp on what this tradition actually was. so why were they still laboring at the margins while the whole world made pilgrimages to rorty? dunno, really. but the history of ideas, like the other kinds, can be profoundly unjust.

anyway, one thing i can testify to is that john smith's books are well worth reading.