The William James reference in the "Problem of Universals" section is absolutely unfounded. James was a pragmatist, which means he was a subjectivist. For him, a concept is valid if, and only if, it serves a practical purpose, and that purpose makes it valid-- whether it "corresponds to reality" is, for James, irrelevent. That is reality, in his view. In what way this anticipates the Objectivist theory of concepts, is beyond me.