Abstract

In order to come to grips with Peirce's definition of truth as the ideal limit of inquiry, I give a succinct exposition of Peirce's theory of inquiry and his philosophical logic, paying attention to several types of reasoning and their interrelations. Subsequently, the arguments of a contemporary apologist of Peirce's notion of truth, C.J. Misak, are subjected to a scrutiny and found to be insufficient, as the principle of bivalence is defended improperly and, as a Peircean definition of truth, turns out to be incompatible with a pragmatist epistemology.