作为古典实用主义奠基者皮尔士(Peirce,C.S.也译皮尔斯或珀斯)和詹姆斯(James，W.也译为詹姆士)都非常关注应该如何确定信念的问题，并且二者的讨论对后来实用主义者的信念观确立都产生了深远影响。对此，国内外研究者有比较丰富的研究，以胡克威(Hookway,C.)1、斯卡格斯塔德(Skagestad,P.)2、菜维(Levi,L)3、米萨克(Misak,C.)4、斯莱特(Slater,M.R.)和奥康奈尔(O'Comell,R.J.)6等为代表的国外哲学家都以专著的方式对皮尔士或詹姆斯其中一人的信念思想进行了比较深入的研究。 然而，根据当前国内外研究现状分析，究竟什么足皮尔士或詹姆斯的信念观，其二者信念观之间存在何种关系，以及对之后哲学家信念思想产生 了何种影响此三个主要问题仍没有答案。围绕这三个主要问题，还有一些当前研究尚不充分之处:皮尔士如何反笛卡尔式怀疑、真正怀疑的内涵、确立信念的方法中如何结合探究、科学的方法以及逻辑推理、詹姆斯反克利福德证据信念观的原因、意志发挥作用的条件、意志与理智之间的关系、以意志为主确立的信仰与信念的关系、如何从真信念视角规范信念确立和实用主义思想如何转化为信念意义规范式而确立出信念的是其所是等。 本篇论文将聚焦于以上三个主要问题以及相关已分析而得的尚待深入探讨之处展开研究。据此，关于第一个问题，皮尔士和詹姆斯信念观是什么的问题，笔者于第一章和第二章分别从皮尔士信念观反基础主义以及于实用 主义之中此二视角对皮尔士的信念观是什么的问题展开论述;于第三章和第四章分别从詹姆斯对皮尔上信念观的承袭和突破两视角针对詹姆斯的信念观是什么进行阐述。关于第二个问题，皮尔士和詹姆斯信念观之间存在何种关系。笔者一方面，在第三章和第四章论述詹姆斯信念观是什么中，以承袭和突破的路径进行了分析;另一方面，在第五章第一节中，笔者针对前四章已得二者信念观构成的四部分内容，对二者信念观的同与异进行比对阐释。关于第三个问题，笔者于第五章第二节，从相异之处的融合和对相同之处的深化二视角，针对皮尔士和台姆斯信念观对之后实用主义哲学家信念思想的影响及表现 进行深入探讨. 笔者认为，皮尔士和詹姆斯的信念观都是由信念的界域、确立信念的规范力、信念为点于线至真以及信念为点于实用主义思想 下规定的面确定是其所是此四部分构成。同时，根据皮尔士和詹姆斯对信念至真的规范以及各自对实用主义的定义，笔者还完善且论证出皮尔士和詹姆斯确立信念和把握信念意义的规范式。其次，笔者认为，从总体上来看，在对信念的界域和确立信念的规范力方面，皮尔士和詹姆斯的信念观表现为以异为主;而在信念为点于不断转变的线 至真以及信念为点于实用 主义定义下多维度形成的面确定是其所是方面，二者信念观表现为以同为主。最后，笔者以20世纪50、60年代为界，证得在此之前以古典实用主义哲学家杜威为代表，所受影响主要表现为对皮尔士和詹姆斯信念观中相异之处进行融合;而在此之后以新实用主义者为代表，所受影响主要表现为对二者信念观中相同之处结合经验和语言进行深化。

As the founders of classical pragmatism. Peirce and James both pay much attention to the topic regarding how to fix belief. Their discussions on this topic have significantly influenced the following pragmatists, so that there are abundant related research worldwide. For examples, representative foreign scholars like Hookway. C., Skagestad, P.. Levi, I, Misak, C.,, Slater, M.R. and O’Connell,R.J.have accomplished a relatively deep research on the notion of belief of either Peirce or James, which have been published in books. However, based on the current research, three main questions remain unsolved as to the content of the notion of belief of Peirce or James, their differences and similarities, and influences of them to the following pragmatists’thoughts of belief.Around above three questions,there are limited research such as (1)how Peirce refutes Descartes’doubt,(2)the connotation of Peirce’s real doubt,(3)how to combine inquiry,the method of science,and logic inferences to fix belief, (4) the reasons why James argues Clifford's notion of belief, (5) the situations of using will, (6) the relationship between will and intellect, (7) the relationship between belief and faith fixed mainly by will, (8) how to norm the fixation of belief from the perspective of truth, and (9) how to transform pragmatism to formula of the meaning of belief in order to clarify what the belief is. This dissertation will focus on resolving the above questions including three main ones and some other minors. The first question focuses on elaborating what the notions of belief of Peirce and James are. Chapter One and Two discuss around the content of the notion of belief of Peirce from two aspects, anti-foundationalism and pragmatism. Chapter Three and Four discuss around the content of belief of James from two perspectives, taking over and breaking through Peirce's notion of belief.The second question focuses on elaborating the relationship between Peirce’s and James's notions of belief. On one hand, I analyze it from two perspectives, taking over and breaking through in Chapter Three and Four On the other hand, I compare the four parts of Peirce's and James's notions of belief based the former four chapters in the first section of Chapter Five.Regarding the third question,I discusses the influences and presentations Peirce’s and James’s notions of belief leaving to the following pragmatists from two aspects,mixing the differences and developing the similarities in the second section of Chapter five. In my opinion,Peirce’s and James's notions of belief,either of which consists of four parts: the boundary of belief, the norm force of fixing belief, belief being a point changed like in a line to the truth, belief being a point regulated by pragmatism to conform what it is. Meanwhile, doing the research focused on Peirce's and James's norms of the truth and their definitions pragmatism,I complete and prove Peirce’s and James's norm formulas of fixing belief and tracking out the meaning of belief. Besides, I clarify in general that in the aspects of the realm of belief and the norm force of fixing belief mainly manifest the differences of notions of belief of Peirce and James; while in the aspects of taking belief as a point continually changed like in a line to the truth and confirmed what it is with analyzing pragmatism mainly reflect the similarities between them. Finally, I take the 20 Century 50-year and 60-year as the dividing to clarify that before those years Dewey as the represent of the classical pragmatists, whose bearing influences mainly presented as mixing the differences of Peirce's and James's notions of belief; after those years, neo-pragmatists as the represents,whose bearing influences mainly presented as developing the similarities between Peirce's and James's combing with the of experience and language.