In this dissertation, I examine a growing trend in contemporary cognitive science known as cognitive pragmatism. This subject merits examination for a number of reasons, but primarily it is needed because the trend of cognitive pragmatism is so entrenched in cognitive science, while at the same time remaining a lightning rod of controversy. The lack of a consensus regarding the nature of American pragmatismthe purported progenitor of cognitive pragmatism has in particular attracted skepticism of pragmatism’s methodology. Therefore, it is necessary to ask why American pragmatism became involved in the discipline of cognitive science and how it subsequently came to be interpreted in such different ways. Given that pragmatism is a relatively well established school, it is worth addressing its significance for the burgeoning field of cognitive science. In their pragmatist inspired views of cognition, both Mark Johnson and Jerry Fodor overlook the figure whom I consider to be pragmatism’s most important: Charles Sanders Peirce. This is likely due to the fact that Peirce’s ideas differ from pragmatism as it is popularly conceived, due in no small part to the influence of William James and John Dewey. Further, it is difficult for either Johnson’s embodied theory of mind (ETM) or Fodor’s representational theory of mind (RTM) to employ Peirceian pragmatism in their respective definitions of cognition; they perhaps have erred by filing to take into account Peirce’s thought. Therefore, I shall tackle this challenge by clarifying the ‘Johnson Fodor debate’ using the tools of Peirceian pragmatism, or ‘pragmaticism.’ Taking into consideration the current trends of both the ‘pragmatist turn’ and ‘pragmatic turn,’ I propose a third way: namely, a ‘pragmaticist turn’ firmly rooted in Peirce’s philosophy. I will thus supplement the concept of ‘action’ with that of ‘habit’ in order to reinterpret the relation between the embodied and cognitive minds.