On Talisse’s “Peirceanist” Theory

Talisse argues that although Rawls’ theory on democracy allows for “reasonable pluralism,” it is not substantive enough, while Dewey’s pragmatist theory on democracy is too substantive from a metaphysical, epistemic, and normative view, and therefore does not allow for reasonable pluralism. Talisse proposes a new pragmatist theory on democracy based rather on Peirce’s pragmatism; said theory supposedly is more substantive than Rawls’, but not as much as Dewey’s, and therefore can accommodate reasonable pluralism. I argue that Peirce’s theory is at least as substantive as Dewey’s in all three areas, and hence by Talisse’s own account would not accommodate reasonable pluralism, as defined by him.