Charles Sanders Peirce is quickly becoming the dominant figure in the
history of American philosophy. The breadth and depth of his work has
begun to obscure even the brightest of his contemporaries. Concerning
the interpretation of his work, however, there are two distinct schools.
The first holds that Peirce's work is an aggregate of important but
disconnected insights. The second school argues that his work is a
systematic philosophy with many pieces of the overall picture still
obscure or missing. It is this second view which seems to me the most
reasonable, in part because it has been convincingly defended by other
scholars, but most importantly because Peirce himself described his
philosophy as systematic: What I would recommend is that every person
who wishes to form an opinion concerning fundamental problems should
first of all make a complete survey of human knowledge, should take note
of all the valuable ideas in each branch of science, should observe in
just what respect each has been successful and where it has failed, in
order that, in the light of the thorough acquaintance so attained of the
available materials for a philosophical theory and of the nature and
strength of each, he may proceed to the study of what the problem of
philosophy consists in, and of the proper way of solving it (6. 9)
[1].