Este artículo presenta a Weber y Habermas como los umbrales o polos de una modernidad que tiene al progreso como horizonte teórico-práctico. El diagnóstico weberiano sobre la modernidad y su proceso de desencantamiento del mundo y la injustificada reducción de la actividad racional a una actividad utilitario-estratégica desprovista de su carácter veritativo y de su orientación valórica, Habermas la utiliza para justificar su propuesta teórico-crítica respecto a la modernidad y la "paradoja de la racionalización", distinguiendo "sistema" y "mundo vital". Aquí (...) "desencantamiento del mundo" y "consenso del proyecto de lamodernidad", se encuentranThis article presents Weber and Habermas like the thresholds or poles of a modernity that has to the progress as theoretical- practical horizon. The diagnosis weberiano on the modernity and his process of disenchantment of the world and the unjustified reduction of the rational activity to a utilitarian-strategic activity devoid of his character of truth, Habermas uses to justify his theoretical-critical offerwith regard to themodernity and the "paradox of the rationalization", distinguishing "system" and "vital world". Here "disenchantment of the world" and "consensus of the project of the modernity", they are. (shrink)

RésuméCette étude voudrait attirer ľattention sur la théorie peircéenne de la signification et, plus particulièrement, sur une notion qui paraît jouer un rôle central dans cette dernière, à savoir la notion ?on;interprétant. Médiateur entre le signe et ľobjet, l'interpretant peircéen prend tout son sens dans le cadre ?on;une theorie de la genèse des systèmes sémiotiques et ľanalyse qu'en fait Peir‐ce tente ?on;apporter, bien avant Carnap, une solution originale au problème des rapports entre sens et référence.SummaryThe purpose of this study (...) is to call the reader's attention to Peirce's theory of meaning and particularly to one notion which appears to play a decisive part in it, the notion of interpretant. The Peircean interpretant, a mediator between the sign and the object, is fully revealed within the theory of the genesis of semiotic systems and its analysis by Peirce is an attempt, long before Carnap, to propound an original solution to the problem of the relationship between meaning and reference.ZusammenfassungAnliegen dieser Studie ist es, im Rahmen der Peirceschen Theorie den Begriff der Bedeutung hervorzuheben und insbesondere das Konzept des interpretant, das eine wesentliche Rolle in dieser Theorie zu spielen scheint. Als Vermittler zwischen Zeichen und Objekt gewinnt der Peirce‐sche interpretant seine ganze Bedeutung im Rahmen einer Theorie ttber die Entstehung der semiotischen Systeme, und die Peircesche Analyse versucht lange vor Carnap eine eigene LSsung zum Problem der Beziehungen zwischen Sinn und Referenz zu erbringen. (shrink)

The central thesis of this essay is that the relation imagined to hold between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit corresponds quite closely with the triadic relationship that holds between object, sign, and interpretant, respectively, within C. S. Peirce’s conception of semiosis. Section 1 introduces Peirce’s conception of semiosis. Section 2 supports the main thesis through examination of descriptions of the Trinitarian relations in two classic Christian texts: The New Testament and The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Section 3 (...) reviews two alternative explanations of this surprising correlation: Andrew Robinson’s vestigia Trinitatis explanation and a naturalistic alternative. (shrink)

This inquiry illustrates how Peirce’s Energetic Interpretant facilitates consciousness-raising between sign users. Because it forces attention and progression of action, the Energetic Interpretant highlights perfective aspectual characteristics, namely atomistic/punctual cause-effect sign relations by featuring junctures between events: beginning, middle, end. For example, the stops and starts of events are influenced by the nature of the action, in addition to the agent’s idiosyncratic preferences and predilections. The Thirdness underlying it further perpetuates the punctual component present in action relations, operational (...) when effort produces resistance against an opposing force. Because effort can materialize physically, or internally, it demonstrates the continued primacy of Peirce’s categories in fostering certain consequences. Energetic Interpretants can inhibit, i.e., attention to one stimulus, while ignoring another. Nonetheless, consciously inhibiting/resisting a force introduces control beyond the self—another’s reflections upon the conscious acts of an agent. This influence between interlocutors satisfies Peirce’s maxim of a “common place to stand”, demonstrating mutual comprehension of the sign’s proper effect. In fact, Energetic Interpretants may result in an effect of such proportion upon either or both interlocutors that a habit-change materializes. As such, Energetic Interpretants epitomize the perfectivity exercised by particular efforts, intimating the likelihood of their discursive success. Inherent in punctual events is the element of surprise, which ultimately hastens the kind of habit-change especially exhibited in Peirce’s double consciousness —self talking to self or other. (shrink)

There seem to be two distinct aspects to the role played by the Interpretant in Peirce’s account of the sign relation. On the one hand, the Interpretant is said to establish the relation between the Sign and Object. That is, the Sign can “stand for” its Object, and thereby actually function as a Sign, only by virtue of its being interpreted as such by an Interpretant. On the other hand, the Interpretant is said to be “determined” (...) by the Sign in such a way that it is thereby mediately determined by the Sign’s Object. How can we understand the relation between these two aspects of the Interpretant? This is the question with which this paper is concerned. I begin by drawing a distinction between what I call the first-order function and second-order function of the Interpretant, and illustrating this distinction using Peirce’s example of comparing the letters p and b in § 9 of the 1867 “On a New List of Categories.” I then show that this same distinction can be discerned in a significant passage in the second section of Peirce’s 1903 “A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic,” as well as in his early definition of the Interpretant in the “New List.” This double function of the Interpretant has been noted in the Peircean literature, specifically by Joseph Ransdell in his 1966 dissertation, and more recently by André De Tienne. However, an important aspect of what I call the second-order function of the Interpretant remains unclarified in Ransdell and De Tienne’s approaches, namely, its relation to the logical operation of hypostatic abstraction. I will show that the Interpretant, in its second-order function, plays a role formally identical in the sign process to the role played by hypostatic abstraction in Peirce’s demonstrations of the Reduction Thesis. This formal identity will afford us with a way of understanding the relation between the two aspects of the Interpretant in terms of hypostatic abstraction. (shrink)

Esta investigação ilustra como o Interpretante energético de Peirce facilita a conscientização entre os usuários de signos. Peirce caracteriza o Interpretante energético/existencial como “empenho” e “esforço”. Por forçar a atenção e a progressão da ação, o Interpretante energético destaca as relações de signos atomísticos/pontuais de causa e efeito apresentando junções entre os eventos: começo, meio e fim. A Primeiridade e a Terceiridade subjacentes perpetuam ainda mais o componente pontual presente nas relações de ação, operacional quando o esforço produz resistência contra (...) um sentimento/força oposta. O esforço é, no entanto, apenas um lado do Interpretante energético de Peirce; o lado oposto ocorre quando os elementos externos têm um papel mais ativo na destruição de crenças/ações anteriores. Os Interpretantes energéticos podem inibir, ou seja, resultar em atenção a um estímulo, enquanto ignoram outro. No entanto, inibir/resistir conscientemente a uma força introduz o controle além de si mesmo—reflexos do outro sobre os atos conscientes de um agente. Essa influência entre interlocutores satisfaz a máxima de Peirce de um “lugar comum para ficar”, demonstrando compreensão mútua do efeito próprio do signo. De fato, os Interpretantes energéticos podem resultar em um efeito de tal proporção sobre um ou ambos os interlocutores que uma mudança de hábito se materialize. Assim, os Interpretantes energéticos condensam a perfectividade exercida por esforços particulares, sugerindo a probabilidade de seu sucesso discursivo. (shrink)