A discussion of American pragmatism through the writings of its three major advocates: Charles S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Examines how each applied pragmatism to, respectively, the theory of reality, the notion of truth, and the concept of the good.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) is considered to be among the half dozen most important philosophers the United States has produced. The Charles S. Peirce Sesquicentennial International Congress opened at Harvard University on September 5, 1989 and concluded on the 10th - Peirce's birthday. The Congress was host to approximately 450 scholars from 26 different nations. Papers concerning Peirce's philosophy of science were given at the Congress by representatives from Italy, France, Sweden, Finland, Korea, India, Denmark, Greece, Brazil, Belgium, Spain, Germany, (...) and the United States. The present volume is a compilation of some of the papers that were presented at that Congress. (shrink)

Emphasizes various elements of James' thought.

This is a new release of the original 1928 edition.

This article is the product of a critical engagement that I have orchestrated between Husserl’s phenomenology and Stoic epistemology. I argue that the Stoic theory of knowledge, which is based upon the idea that the individual human being is a logos spermatikos, or “rational seed” of God, precludes any authentic doctrine of freedom, insofar as it enslaves the individual to a constant reference back toward God, as the source of “fundanlent” of all knowledge. However, the similarities between the Stoic theory (...) and the phenomenology of Husserl call us toward a deeper reading, and an asking of the important question: what constitutes freedom? This question can only be answered by thinking beyond both Stoic epistemological schemas and Husserlian intentionality, toward a doctrine of freedom that is best described as demiurgic.Cet article est le produit d’une enterprise critique organisée autour de la phénoménologie husserlienne et de I’épistémologie stoïcienne. Je soutiens que la théorie stoïcienne de la connaissance, fondée sur I’idée qui veut que I’être humain individuel soit un logos spermatikos, un “germe rationnel” de Dieu, exclut toute doctrine authentique de la liberté, dans la mesure où elle contrait I’individu à référer constamment à Dieu en tant que source ou “fondement” de toute connaissance. Toutefois, les similarités entre la théorie stoïcienne et la phénoménologie husserlienne nous poussent à une interprétation plus profonde et à poser I’importante question: qu’est la liberté? Cette question ne peut être répondue qu’en dépassant et les schémes épistémologiques stoïciens, et I’intentionalité husserlienne, vers une doctrine de la liberté qui pourrait être qualtfiée de démiurgique. (shrink)