Annotated Bibliography
Cornelis de Waal, On Peirce (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2001). Part of
the Wadsworth Notes Series, this text is written by a philosopher that is intimate
with the thinking of Peirce. de Waal is important to my project because he notes
that Peirce is advocates an abstract formula has meaning if, and only if, we can
use it – that is, if it is pragmatic.
S. Morris Eames, Pragmatic Naturalism: An Introduction (Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1977). Eames’ discussion of Descartes Intuition is
fruitful insomuch as it is useful to discuss Descartes conception of Intuition as a
fundamental activity of the mind. Eames enables me to distinguish Peirce’s mode
of pragmatism from other modes of pragmatism and other theories of knowledge
in general, specifically Descartes.
W.B. Gallie, Peirce and Pragmatism (Edinburgh: Penguin Books, 1952). Herein, W. B.
Gallie tries to integrate ideas coming from the pragmatist tradition in their account
of historical knowledge. Gallie accesses the broad character and purpose of
Peirce’s maxim, and notes that it is an instrument of logical analysis, as its aim is
to help us distinguish as clearly as possible the distinctive functions of different
expressions.
Robert B. Talisse and Scott F. Aiken, Pragmatism: A Guide for the Perplexed (New
York: Continuum, 2008). Thematically structured, this book offers a clear and
thorough account of the pragmatist philosophical movement. Talisse and Aikin
are important because they help me see that Peirce’s pragmatism is a method of
logic, suggested partly by the method of science and partly by mathematics, but
all scientific work, according to him, embodies an unconscious pragmatism.
Manley Thompson, The Pragmatic Philosophy of C.S. Peirce (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1953). According to Thompson, Peirce’s account of the four
methods of inquiry suggests a historical progression; the method of tenacity is the
most primitive; the method of authority displays an advance; the a priori method,
in turn, is yet a further advance. All three of these prescientific methods display
belief from the standpoint of an individual; the scientific method, in contrast, is
more comprehensive, and displays a belief fixation that is arrived at via the
community.