Annotated Bibliography on Analysis
§5: Modern Conceptions of Analysis, outside Analytic Philosophy

This bibliography is intended as a reference guide to the key works that deal, in whole or in part, with analysis and related topics such as analyticity and definition. Cross-references are by name(s) of author(s) or editor(s) and either year of publication or abbreviation as indicated immediately after their name(s). Notes in square brackets at the end of an entry indicate the relevant part(s) of the work and/or its significance to the topic of analysis. Key passages can be found quoted in the supplementary document on Definitions and Descriptions of Analysis, linked from the relevant entry and note by means of ‘{Quotation(s)}’. In some cases where there is material available online, an internet address is also given after the entry.

This section of the bibliography corresponds to Section 5 of the main entry, and is divided into subsections which will correspond to the subsections of the supplementary document on Modern Conceptions of Analysis, outside Analytic Philosophy (Not Yet Available). Where works include important material under more than one heading, they are cited under each heading; but duplication has been kept to a minimum. Cross-references to other (sub)sections are provided in curly brackets.

• 5.1 General
• 5.2 German Idealism and Romanticism
• 5.3 Bolzano and the Central European Tradition
• 5.4 Neo-Kantianism
• 5.5 Scientific Philosophy
• 5.6 British Philosophy
• 5.7 American Philosophy
• 5.8 Phenomenology

Annotated Bibliography on Analysis: Full List of Sections

5.1 General

• Baldwin, Thomas, (ed.), 2003, The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Bambach, Charles R., 1995, Heidegger, Dilthey, and the Crisis of Historicism, Cornell University Press [ch. 1: scientism and historicism {§5.5}; ch. 2: Windelband {§5.4}; ch. 3: Rickert {§5.4}; ch. 4: Dilthey {§5.4}; ch. 5: Heidegger {§5.8}]
• Beaney, Michael, (ed.), 2007a, The Analytic Turn: Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology, London: Routledge [includes Beaney 2007b {§5.8, §6.1}, Reck 2007 {§6.2}, Levine 2007 {§6.2, §6.3}, Griffin 2007 {§6.3}, Hylton 2007 {§6.3}, Linsky 2007 {§6.3}, Hacker 2007 {§6.5}, Hanna 2007 {§4.5, §6.5}, Phillips 2007 {§6.5}, Baldwin 2007 {§6.7}, Beaney 2007c {§5.8, §6.1}, Lapointe 2007 {§5.3}, Moran 2007 {§5.8}, Haaparanta 2007 {§5.8}, Thomasson 2007 {§5.8}] {§1.2, §6.1}
• Bergson, Henri, 1903, Introduction to Metaphysics, tr. T.E. Hulme, 1912, with an introd. by T.A. Goudge, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999; also tr. in Bergson 1946, 159-200 {Quotations}
• –––, 1946, The Creative Mind, tr. M.L. Andison, New York: Citadel Press, 1992
• Craig, Edward, 1987, The Mind of God and the Works of Man, Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Gaskin, Richard, (ed.), 2001, Grammar in Early Twentieth-Century Philosophy, London: Routledge [includes Simons 2001 {§5.8}, Levine 2001 {§6.3}, Candlish 2001 {§6.3}, Priest 2001 {§5.8}, {§6.1}]
• Passmore, John, 1966, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 2nd ed., London: Penguin; 1st ed. London: Duckworth, 1957 {§6.1}
• Peckhaus, Volker, 1997, Logik, Mathesis universalis und allgemeine Wissenschaft, Berlin: Akademie Verlag [chs. 5-6: algebra of logic in England and Germany]

5.2 German Idealism and Romanticism

• Beiser, Frederick C., (ed.), 1993, The Cambridge Companion to Hegel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [includes Burbidge 1993, Forster 1993, Hylton 1993]
• Bowie, Andrew, 1997, From Romanticism to Critical Theory, London: Routledge [ch. 4: ‘Interpretative reasons’; ch. 5: ‘The ethics of interpretation: Schleiermacher’]
• –––, 1998, ‘Introduction’ to Schleiermacher HC, vii-xxxi [xxi: Schleiermacher’s rejection of analytic/synthetic dist.]
• Burbidge, John, 1981, On Hegel’s Logic, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press
• –––, 1993, ‘Hegel’s conception of logic’, in Beiser 1993, 86-101
• Craig, Edward, 1987, The Mind of God and the Works of Man, Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Forster, Michael, 1993, ‘Hegel’s dialectical method’, in Beiser 1993, 130-70
• Goethe, Johann W., Faust [I, lines 1908-1941: Meph. vs. analysis]
• –––, 1829, ‘Analyse und Synthese’, in Goethe SN, Band 11: Aufsätze, Fragmente, Studien zur Naturwissenschaft im Allgemeinen, ed. Dorothea Kuhn and Wolf von Engelhardt, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1970, 301-3
• –––, SN, Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft, ed. K. Lothar Wolf et al., Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger
• Hegel, G.W.F., PS, Phenomenology of Spirit, 1807, tr. A.V. Miller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977 [§32: analysis as destructive dissolution {Quotation}]
• –––, SL, Science of Logic, 1812, tr. A.V. Miller, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969 [812-14: geometrical synthesis]
• –––, SW, Sämtliche Werke: Jubiläumsausgabe in 20 Bänden, ed. Hermann Glockner, Stuttgart: Frommann, 1927-30 [Vol. 8, 119, 449: analysis]
• –––, HR, The Hegel Reader, ed. Stephen Houlgate, Oxford: Blackwell, 1998 [59: analysis as dissolution; 307-8: alphabetic writing vs. hieroglyphics]
• Hylton, Peter, 1993, ‘Hegel and analytic philosophy’, in Beiser 1993, 445-85
• Inwood, Michael, 1992, A Hegel Dictionary, Oxford: Blackwell [entry under ‘definition’]
• Kaufmann, Walter, 1991, Goethe, Kant, and Hegel, New Brunswick: Transaction, orig. publ. 1980 [§12: Goethe and analysis]
• Petry, Michael John, (ed.), 1993, Hegel and Newtonianism, Dordrecht: Kluwer [includes Pozzo 1993 and Wehrle 1993]
• Pozzo, Riccardo, 1993, ‘Analysis, Synthesis and Dialectic: Hegel’s Answer to Aristotle, Newton and Kant’, in Petry 1993, 27-39 [Hegel’s dialectic as summing up traditional analysis and synthesis]
• Schelling, F.W.J., 1803, Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature, 2nd ed., 1st ed. 1797, tr. E.E. Harris and P. Heath, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988 [171-2, 187-90: analysis vs. synthesis, and the concept of matter; 258: analysis as infinite dissolution]
• Schiller, Friedrich, AE, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, 1795, rev. 1801, ed. and tr. Elizabeth M. Wilkinson and L.A. Willoughby, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967 [I 4, VI 10: vs. analysis {Quotation}; cf. 222-3]
• Schleiermacher, Friedrich, D, Dialektik, 1822, ed. R. Odebrecht, Leipzig, 1942
• –––, HC, Hermeneutics and Criticism, 1838, tr. and ed. Andrew Bowie, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 [includes Bowie 1998, Schleiermacher SL]
• –––, SL, ‘Schematism and Language’, from Schleiermacher, D, 370-81, tr. in Schleiermacher HC, 271-80
• Magee, Bryan, 1983, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, Oxford: Oxford University Press [31-5: analysis and synthesis]
• Schopenhauer, Arthur, WWR, The World as Will and Representation, 1st ed. 1819, 2nd ed. 1844, 3rd ed. 1859, tr. E.F.J. Payne, 2 vols., New York: Dover, 1969; tr. orig. publ. 1958 [I, §§ 14-15: demonstration]
• Small, Robin, 1983, ‘Dialectic from the Analytic Point of View’, Metaphilosophy 14, 19-31 [on Hegel’s dialectic]
• Wehrle, Walter E., 1993, ‘The Conflict between Newton’s Analysis of Configurations and Hegel’s Conceptual Analysis’, in Petry 1993, 17-26 [Hegelian analysis as Aristotelian rather than Newtonian]

5.3 Bolzano and the Central European Tradition

• Berg, Jan, 1962, Bolzano’s Logic, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell
• Bolzano, Bernard, 1837, Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols., Seidel: Sulzbach [§§ 56-9: intensions; §§ 123-32: composition of props.; §§ 147, 151-5: method of substitution, relations between props.; §§ 148, 197: analyticity; §§ 554-8: defs.]
• Coffa, J. Alberto, 1991, The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ch. 2: ‘Bolzano and the birth of semantics’] {§1.2}
• Dummett, Michael, 1997, ‘Comments on Wolfgang Künne’s Paper’, in Künne et al. 1997, 241-8; repr. in Beaney and Reck 2005, I, 154-60 [reply to Künne 1997] {§6.2}
• Kitcher, P., 1975, ‘Bolzano’s Ideal of Algebraic Analysis’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 6, 229-69
• Kneale, William and Kneale, Martha, 1962, The Development of Logic, Oxford: Oxford University Press [365-9: Bolzano on analyticity]
• Künne, Wolfgang, 1997, ‘Propositions in Bolzano and Frege’, in Künne et al. 1997, 203-40; repr. in Beaney and Reck 2005, I, 124-53 {§6.2}
• –––, 2006, ‘Analyticity and logical truth: from Bolzano to Quine’, in Textor 2006, 184-249
• Künne, W., Siebel, M. and Textor, M., (eds.), 1997, Bolzano and Analytic Philosophy, Amsterdam: Rodopi [includes Künne 1997, Morscher 1997, Rusnock 1997, Sebestik 1997, Textor 1997]
• Lapointe, Sandra, 2002, ‘Substitution: A further conception of analysis in the early analytic and phenomenological traditions?’, Southern Journal of Philosophy 40, Supp. Vol., 101-13 [reply to Beaney 2002 {§5.8}]
• –––, 2007, ‘Bolzano’s Semantics and his Critique of the Decompositional Conception of Analysis’, in Beaney 2007a, 219-34 {§5.1}
• Morscher, Edgar, 1997, ‘Bolzano’s Method of Variation: Three Puzzles’, in Künne et al. 1997, 139-65 [analyticity]
• Neeman, Ursula, 1970, ‘Analytic and Synthetic Propositions in Kant and Bolzano’, Ratio 12, 1-25
• Proust, Joelle, 1986, Questions de forme, Paris: Fayard, tr. as Questions of Form: Logic and the Analytic Proposition from Kant to Carnap by A.A. Brenner, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989 [II: Bolzano] {§1.2}
• Rusnock, Paul, 1997, ‘Bolzano and the Traditions of Analysis’, in Künne et al. 1997, 61-85 [mathematical analysis and conceptual analysis]
• Sebestik, Jan, 1997, ‘Bolzano, Exner and the Origins of Analytical Philosophy’, in Künne et al. 1997, 33-59
• Simons, Peter, 1992, Philosophy and Logic in Central Europe from Bolzano to Tarski: Selected Essays, Dordrecht: Kluwer
• Skolimowski, Henryk, 1967, Polish Analytical Philosophy: A Survey and a Comparison with British Analytical Philosophy, London: Routledge
• Textor, Mark, 1997, ‘Bolzano’s Sententialism’, in Künne et al. 1997, 181-202 [Bolzano’s notion of paraphrase]
• Textor, Mark, (ed.), 2006, The Austrian Contribution to Analytic Philosophy, London: Routledge [includes Künne 2006, Morscher 2006 {§6.7}] {§6.1}
• Weiler, Gershon, 1970, Mauthner’s Critique of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [chs. 3, 6-7: language and logic]
• Wolenski, Jan, 1989, Logic and Philosophy in the Lvov-Warsaw School, Dordrecht: Kluwer

5.4 Neo-Kantianism

• Bambach, Charles R., 1995, Heidegger, Dilthey, and the Crisis of Historicism, Cornell University Press [ch. 1: scientism and historicism; ch. 2: Windelband; ch. 3: Rickert; ch. 4: Dilthey] {§5.1}
• Cassirer, Ernst, 1910, Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff, Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, tr. as Substance and Function, Chicago: Open Court, 1923 [ch. 5, §2: induction and analysis]
• –––, 1913, ‘Erkenntnistheorie nebst den Grenzfragen der Logik’, Jahrbücher der Philosophie 1, 1-59 {Quotation}
• Friedman, Michael, 2000, A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger, Chicago: Open Court {§5.5, §6.7}
• Gabriel, Gottfried, 1989a, ‘Lotze und die Entstehung der modernen Logik bei Frege’, introd. to Lotze L1, xi-xxxv
• –––, 1989b, ‘Objektivität: Logik und Erkenntnistheorie bei Lotze und Frege’, introd. to Lotze L3, ix- xxvii
• Glock, Hans-Johann, 1999, ‘Vorsprung durch Logik: The German Analytic Tradition’, in O’Hear 1999, 137-66 {§6.1}
• Hönigswald, Richard, 1959, Analysen und Probleme: Abhandlungen zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte, ed. Gerd Wolandt, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer [35-6: Plato; 69: Hobbes and nominalism; 84-6, 96-7: problem of universals solved through ‘analysis’; 203-4: analysis vs. distinction]
• –––, 1961, Abstraktion und Analysis: Ein Beitrag zur Problemgeschichte des Universalienstreites in der Philosophie des Mittelalters, ed. Karl Bärthlein, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer [opposition between analysis and abstraction in relation to the problem of universals] {§3.1}
• –––, 1969, Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Methodenlehre: I. Teil, ed. Hariolf Oberer, Bonn: H. Bouvier [152-63: definition and analysis]
• –––, 1970, Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Methodenlehre: II. Teil, ed. Hariolf Oberer, Bonn: H. Bouvier [108: abstraction vs. analysis; 206: analysis, induction and deduction; 241: analysing vs. rationalizing]
• Köhnke, Klaus Christian, 1991, The Rise of Neo-Kantianism, tr. R.J. Hollingdale, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Lotze, Hermann, L, Logik, Leipzig, 1874, 2nd ed. 1880, Books 1 and 3 repr. as L1, Logik, Erstes Buch: Vom Denken (Reine Logik), ed. G. Gabriel, Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1989, and L3, Logik, Drittes Buch: Vom Erkennen (Methodologie), ed. G. Gabriel, Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1989 [Book 3, §§ 297-301: analytic vs. synthetic method]
• Natorp, Paul, 1910, Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften, Leipzig: Tuebner
• Rickert, Heinrich, 1892, Der Gegenstand der Erkenntnis, Tübingen: Mohr, 2nd ed. 1904, 3rd ed. 1915, 5th ed. 1921
• –––, 1902, Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung, Tübingen: Mohr, 3rd ed. 1921, 5th ed. 1929, tr. by G. Oakes as The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986
• Schmied-Kowarzik, Wolfdietrich, 1969, ‘Synthesis und Analysis: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Hönigswalds Hegel-Kritik’, Hegel-Studien 5, 225-57
• Trendelenburg, A., 1867, ‘Über Leibnizes Entwurf einer allgemeinen Charakteristik’, Historische Beiträge zur Philosophie, Vol. 3, 1-47
• Wundt, Wilhelm, 1880, Logik, Band 1: Erkenntnisslehre, Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke
• –––, 1883, Logik, Band 2: Methodenlehre, Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke

5.5 Scientific Philosophy

• Friedman, Michael, 2000, A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger, Chicago: Open Court {§5.4, §6.7}
• Hintikka, Jaakko, 2001, ‘Ernst Mach at the Crossroads of Twentieth-Century Philosophy’, in Floyd and Shieh 2001, 81-100 [Mach’s notion of reducibility to immediate experience] {§6.1}
• Holton, Gerald, 1998, The Scientific Imagination, with a new introduction, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; first published 1978 [ch. 4 (111-51): ‘Analysis and Synthesis as methodological themata’ {Quotation}]
• Mach, Ernst, 1905, Erkenntnis und Irrtum, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991 [§§ 5-11 of ‘Das Problem’, 256-64: analytic vs. synthetic method]
• –––, 1906, The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical, New York: Dover, 1959
• Pickstone, John V., 1994, ‘Museological Science? The Place of the Analytical/Comparative in Nineteenth-Century Science, Technology and Medicine’, Hist. Sci. 32, 111-38 [transition in the 19th c. from savant/connoisseur to analytical/comparative science; analysis as decomposition]
• Schmaus, Warren, 1982, ‘The Concept of Analysis in Comte’s Philosophy of Mathematics’, Phil. Res. Arch. 8 [Comte on the historical succession of (ever more powerful) methods of analysis]

5.6 British Philosophy

• Beaney, Michael, 2001,‘Collingwood’s Critique of Analytic Philosophy’, Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 8, 99-122
• –––, 2005, ‘Collingwood’s Conception of Presuppositional Analysis’, Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 11, no. 2, 41-114
• –––, 2006, ‘Rex Martin’s Reading of Collingwood’s Essay on Metaphysics’, Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 12, no. 1, 83-102 [reply to Martin 1998]
• Bentham, Jeremy, WJB, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. John Bowring, Edinburgh, 1843
• –––, FO, ‘A Fragment on Ontology’, in WJB, Vol. 8, 193-211 [on fictitious entities]
• –––, EL, ‘Essay on Logic’, in WJB, Vol. 8, 213-93 [246-8: paraphrasis {Quotation}; 256-9, 275: analysis and synthesis]
• –––, C, Chrestomathia, 1815 [appendix on ‘Nomenclature and Classification’]
• Boole, George, 1847, The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, London and Cambridge, repr. in Studies in Logic and Probability, ed. R. Rhees, London: Watts and Co., 1952
• –––, 1854, The Laws of Thought, London and Cambridge, repr. in Collected Logical Works, Vol. 2, London and Chicago: Open Court, 1940
• Bornet, Gérard, 1995, ‘George Boole’s Linguistic Turn and the Origins of Analytical Philosophy’, in Hintikka and Puhl 1995, 236-48 {§6.1}
• Bradley, F.H., PL, Principles of Logic, Oxford, 1883, 2nd ed. 1922, corrected impression 1928; ch. 1, §§ 1-4, 6-12, ch. 2, §§ 1-32, 38-45, 48-51, 53, 56-81, ch. 3, §§ 1-7, 12, 15-20 repr. in WLM, Part I [95 (§64): analysis as alteration {Quotation}; ch. 6: analysis; ‘Terminal Essays’, ‘A Note on Analysis’: reply to Spaulding 1912]
• –––, AR, Appearance and Reality, Oxford, 1893; 2nd ed. 1897 [425 {Quotation}]
• –––, ETR, Essays on Truth and Reality, Oxford, 1914 [176: analysis as inadequate {Quotation}; ch. 10, section ‘On analysis – its nature’; 270]
• –––, WLM, Writings on Logic and Metaphysics, ed. James W. Allard and Guy Stock, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994 [77-8 (PL, ch. 2, §64): analysis as alteration; 280 (ETR, ch. 4, 176): analysis as inadequate]
• Bradley, James, (ed.), 1996, Philosophy after F.H. Bradley, Bristol: Thoemmes Press [includes Dwyer 1996, Wilson 1996]
• Candlish, Stewart, 2001, ‘Grammar, Ontology, and Truth in Russell and Bradley’, in Gaskin 2001, 116-41 {§5.1}
• –––, 2007, The Russell/Bradley Dispute and its Significance for Twentieth-Century Philosophy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan [ch. 5: ‘Grammar and Ontology’; ch. 6: ‘Relations’] {§6.3}
• Collingwood, R.G., 1933, An Essay on Philosophical Method, Oxford: Oxford University Press; rev. ed. 2005, ed. James Connelly and Giuseppina D’Oro [§3: Socratic method and Meno’s paradox {Quotation}] {§1.2}
• –––, 1940, An Essay on Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press; rev. ed. 1998, ed. Rex Martin [21-4, 39-47, 84, 219: analysis and presuppositions {Quotations}]
• Connelly, James and D’Oro, Giuseppina, 2005, ‘Editor’s Introduction’ to Collingwood 1933, rev. ed.
• Ducasse, Curt J., 1941, Philosophy as a Science, Oskar Piest [ch. 3: Collingwood] {§1.2} http://www.ditext.com/ducasse/duc-cont.html
• Dwyer, Philip, 1996, ‘Bradley, Russell and Analysis’, in J. Bradley 1996, 331-47 [Russell’s concept of analysis as decomposition taken from Bradley]
• Martin, Rex, 1998, ‘Editor’s Introduction’ to Collingwood 1940, rev. ed., xv-xcv
• McCosh, James, 1870, The Laws of Discursive Thought: being a Text-book of Formal Logic, London: Macmillan; repr. Thoemmes Press, Bristol, 1991 [§§ 62-4: analysis and synthesis; §§ 65-75: logical definition]
• McHenry, Leemon B., 1992, Whitehead and Bradley: A Comparative Analysis, State University of New York Press [ch. 3, §3 on genetic analysis]
• Mill, James, 1869, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer
• Mill, John Stuart, SL, A System of Logic, in Collected Works, Vol. 7, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973
• Ogden, C.K., 1932, Bentham’s Theory of Fiction, London: Routledge
• Quine, W.V.O., 1975, ‘Five Milestones of Empiricism’, in Theories and Things, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981, 67-72 [68-70: Bentham’s paraphrasis and contextual definition {Quotation}] {§6.9}
• Sidgwick, Henry, 1895, ‘The Philosophy of Common Sense’, in Sidgwick EEM, 139-50 [discussion of Reid and critique of ‘mental chemistry’]
• –––, EEM, Essays on Ethics and Method, ed. Marcus G. Singer, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000
• Skorupski, John, 1989, John Stuart Mill, London: Routledge [chs. 4-5: deduction]
• Spaulding, Edward Gleason, 1912, ‘A Defense of Analysis’, in Holt et al. 1912 [critique of Bradley] {§5.7}
• –––, 1918, The New Rationalism, New York: Henry Holt and Co. [development of Spaulding 1912] {§5.7}
• Wilson, Fred, 1990, Psychological Analysis and the Philosophy of John Stuart Mill, Toronto: University of Toronto Press
• –––, 1996, ‘F.H. Bradley’s Impact on Empiricism’, in J. Bradley 1996, 251-82 [analysis and relations]
• Wisdom, John, 1931, Interpretation and Analysis in Relation to Bentham’s Theory of Definition, London: Kegan Paul {§1.2, §6.6}

5.7 American Philosophy

• Dipert, Randall, 2004, ‘Peirce’s Deductive Logic: Its Development, Influence and Philosophical Significance’, in Misak 2004
• Holt, E.B., Marvin, W.T., Montague, W.P., Perry, R.B., Pitkin, W.B. and Spaulding, E.G., (eds.), 1912, The New Realism, New York: Macmillan [includes Spaulding 1912]
• Hookway, Christopher, 1997, ‘Logical Principles and Philosophical Attitudes: Peirce’s Response to James’s Pragmatism’, in Putnam 1997
• Houser, N., Roberts, D. and van Evra, J., (eds.), 1997, Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, Indiana University Press [includes Levy 1997]
• Levi, Isaac, 2004, ‘Beware of Syllogism: Statistical Reasoning and Conjecturing according to Peirce’, in Misak 2004
• Levy, Stephen H., 1997, ‘Peirce’s Theoremic/Corollarial Distinction and the Interconnections between Mathematics and Logic’, in Houser, Roberts and van Evra 1997, 85-110 [abduction; analytic/synthetic distinction]
• Misak, Cheryl, 2004, The Cambridge Companion to Peirce, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [includes Dipert 2004, Levi 2004, Short 2004, Wiggins 2004]
• Peirce, Charles Sanders, 1877, ‘The Fixation of Belief’, Popular Science Monthly 12 (Nov. 1877), 1-15; repr. in Peirce EP, 1, 109-23 http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html
• –––, 1878, ‘How to Make Our Ideas Clear’, Popular Science Monthly 12 (Jan. 1878), 286-302; repr. in Peirce EP, 1, 124-41 http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html
• –––, NEM, The New Elements of Mathematics, ed. Carolyn Eisele, The Hague: Mouton, 1976, 4 vols. in 5 books [IV, 1-50: theoremic/corollarial distinction]
• –––, EP, The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, 2 vols., ed. Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, Vol. 1 1992, Vol. 2 1998
• Putnam, Ruth Anna, 1997, The Cambridge Companion to William James, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Short, T.L., 2004, ‘The Development of Peirce’s Theory of Signs’, in Misak 2004
• Spaulding, Edward Gleason, 1912, ‘A Defense of Analysis’, in Holt et al. 1912 [critique of Bradley] {§5.6}
• –––, 1918, The New Rationalism, New York: Henry Holt and Co. [development of Spaulding 1912] {§5.6}
• Wiggins, David, 2004, ‘Reflections on Inquiry and Truth arising from Peirce’s Method for the Fixation of Belief’, in Misak 2004

5.8 Phenomenology

• Beaney, Michael, 2002, ‘Decompositions and Transformations: Conceptions of Analysis in the Early Analytic and Phenomenological Traditions’, Southern Journal of Philosophy 40, Supp. Vol., 53-99 {§6.1}
• –––, 2007b, ‘The Analytic Turn in Twentieth-Century Philosophy’, introduction to Beaney 2007a, 1-30 {§5.1}
• –––, 2007c, ‘Conceptions of Analysis in the Early Analytic and Phenomenological Traditions: Some Comparisons and Relationships’, in Beaney 2007a, 196-216 [abridged and revised version of Beaney 2002] {§5.1}
• Bell, David, 1990, Husserl, London: Routledge [17-23: Brentano and the analysis of phenomena]
• Brentano, Franz, 1874, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, ed. L.L. McAlister, tr. A.C. Rancurello et al., London: Routledge, 1973
• –––, 1982, Deskriptive Psychologie, ed. R.M. Chisholm and W. Baumgartner, Hamburg: Meiner
• Durfee, Harold A., 1976, Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff
• Elliston, Frederick A., and McCormick, Peter, (eds.), 1978, Husserl: Expositions and Appraisals, University of Notre Dame Press [includes Tugendhat 1978]
• Føllesdal, Dagfinn, 2001, ‘Bolzano, Frege, and Husserl on Reference and Object’, in Floyd and Shieh 2001, 67-80 {§6.1}
• Haaparanta, Leila, 1988, ‘Analysis as the Method of Logical Discovery: Some Remarks on Frege and Husserl’, Synthese 77, 73-97
• –––, 1996, ‘The Model of Geometry in Logic and Phenomenology’, Philosophia Scientiae 1, 58-71
• –––, 2007, ‘The Method of Analysis and the Idea of Pure Philosophy in Husserl’s Transcendental Phenomenology’, in Beaney 2007a, 257-69 {§5.1}
• Hammond, Michael, Howarth, Jane and Keat, Russell, 1991, Understanding Phenomenology, Oxford: Blackwell [62-70: phenomenological description and conceptual analysis]
• Heidegger, Martin, 1927, The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, tr. A. Hofstadter, Indiana University Press, 1982 [§12, 114-15: phenomenological analysis {Quotation}]
• Husserl, Edmund, LI, Logical Investigations, 2 vols., 1st ed. 1900/01, 2nd ed. 1913, tr. J.N Findlay, rev. D. Moran, London: Routledge, 2000
• –––, IPP, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, tr. F. Kersten, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1982 {Quotation}
• –––, EJ, Experience and Judgment, ed. L. Landgrebe, tr. J.S. Churchill and K. Ameriks, London: Routledge, 1973 [§§ 22-4: explication] {Quotations}
• Küng, Guido, 1978, ‘Phenomenological Reduction as Epoche and Explication’, in Elliston and McCormick 1978, 338-49
• Manser, Anthony, 1972, ‘Phenomenology as the Method of Philosophy’, in Mays and Brown 1972, 273-80
• Mays, Wolfe and Brown, S.C., (eds.), 1972, Linguistic Analysis and Phenomenology, London: Macmillan [Part 6 on ‘Philosophical Methodology’: includes Pettit 1972a, 1972b; Tugendhat 1972; Manser 1972]
• Moran, Dermot, 2000, Introduction to Phenomenology, London: Routledge
• –––, 2007, ‘Husserl’s Methodology of Concept Clarification’, in Beaney 2007a, 235-56 {§5.1}
• Parsons, Charles, 2001, ‘Husserl and the Linguistic Turn’, in Floyd and Shieh 2001, 123-41 {§6.1}
• Pettit, Philip, 1972a, ‘On Phenomenology as a Methodology of Philosophy’, in Mays and Brown 1972, 241-55
• –––, 1972b, ‘The Case for Explanation Continued: A Reply to Professor Tugendhat’, in Mays and Brown 1972, 267-72
• Priest, Graham, 2001, ‘Heidegger and the Grammar of Being’, in Gaskin 2001, 238-51 {§5.1}
• –––, 2002, Beyond the Limits of Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press [ch. 15: orig. publ. as Priest 2001] {{§4.5, §6.5}
• Reinach, Adolf, 1969, ‘Concerning Phenomenology’, tr. Dallas Willard, The Personalist 50, 194-22
• Rosen, Stanley, 1980, The Limits of Analysis, New York: Basic Books, repr. Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000 [critique of analytic philosophy from a ‘continental’ perspective’ {Quotations}] {§1.2, §6.1}
• Ryle, Gilbert, 1932, ‘Phenomenology’, in Ryle 1971, I, 167-78 {§6.8}
• –––, 1962, ‘Phenomenology versus “The Concept of Mind”’, in Ryle 1971, I, 179-96 {§6.8}
• Simons, Peter, 2001, ‘Categories, Construction, and Congruence: Husserl’s Tactics of Meaning’, in Gaskin 2001, 54-73 {§5.1}
• Smith, David Woodruff, 2007, Husserl, London: Routledge [410-23: Husserl and analytic philosophy] {§6.1}
• Thomasson, Amie L., 2002, ‘Phenomenology and the Development of Analytic Philosophy’, Southern Journal of Philosophy 40, Supp. Vol., 115-142
• –––, 2007, ‘Conceptual Analysis in Phenomenology and Ordinary Language Philosophy’, in Beaney 2007a, 270-84 {§5.1}
• Tugendhat, Ernst, 1972, ‘Description as the Method of Philosophy: A Reply to Mr Pettit’, in Mays and Brown 1972, 256-66
• –––, 1978, ‘Phenomenology and Linguistic Analysis’, in Elliston and McCormick 1978, 325-37