Locating its roots in the intellectual tradition of the 20th century’s classical pragmatism, neopragmatism not only revived the cooperation between theory and practice, but also managed to set a new direction for it. The most outstanding and influential figure in outlining the new perspective was Richard Rorty, who replaced the concept of experience used by classical pragmatists with language. Richard Shusterman soon started to criticize Rorty’s approach, which criticism, and the extensive debate that followed, became a significant momentum in the overall philosophical intellectual life. Therefore, the aim of the research is to thoroughly explore the pivotal and important points of the debate, justifying the thesis that Rorty's language-centered philosophy is contradictory and one-sided, while pointing out the plausibility of Shusterman's somaesthetical position. The research is divided into three structural parts, keeping in mind the main points of the debate, which are the following. The first chapter of the analysis seeks to contextualize the opposition between the two pragmatists through general concepts such as democracy, cultural politics and the self. The second chapter of the analysis attempts to narrow the scope of the comparison of the differences between the two authors' theories, with particular reference to their understanding of language and experience. The third chapter attempts to examine Rorty’s and Shusterman's complex relationship with aesthetics, focusing on the manifestation of the duality of language and experience in their aesthetic thinking.