Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 224 Seiten: 211-222.

Charles Peirce, Mikhail Bakhtin and Thomas Sebeok all develop original research itineraries around the sign and, despite terminological differences, canbe related with reference to the concept of dialogism and modelling. Jakob von Uexküll’s biosemiosic “functional cycle”, a model for semiosic processes, is alsoimplied in the relation between dialogue and communication.Biological models which describe communication as a self-referential, autopoietic and semiotically closed system (e.g., the models proposed by Maturana,Varela, and Thure von Uexküll) contrast with both the linear (Shannon and (...) Weaver) and the circular (Saussure) paradigms. The theory of autopoietic systems is only incompatible with dialogism if reference is to a linear causal model which describes communication as developing from source to destination, or to the conversation model governed by the turning around together rule. Dialogism understood in biosemiotic terms overlaps with the concepts of interconnectivity,interrelation, intercorporeity and presupposes the otherness relation.As Uexküll says, the relation with the umwelt in nonhuman living beings is stable and concerns the species; on the contrary, in human beings it is, changeableand concerns the single individual, which is at once an advantage and a disadvantage. Thanks to “syntactics”, human beings can construct, deconstruct and reconstruct an infinite number of worlds from a finite number of elements. This distinguishes human beings from other animals and determines their capacity for posing problems and asking questions. The human being not only produces his or her own world, but can also endanger it, and even destroy it to the point of causing the extinction of all other life forms on Earth. The unique capacity for reflection on signs makes human beings responsible for life across the planet, both human and nonhuman. Such reflections shift semiotic research in the direction of semioethics. (shrink)

“Probably Peirce’s best-known works are the first two articles in a series of six that originally were collectively entitled Illustrations of the Logic of Science and published in Popular Science Monthly from November 1877 through August 1878. The first is entitled ‘The Fixation of Belief’ and the second is entitled ‘How to Make Our Ideas Clear.’ In the first of these papers Peirce defended, in a manner consistent with not accepting naive realism, the superiority of the scientific method (...) over other methods of overcoming doubt and ‘fixing belief.’” — Robert Burch, “Charles Sanders Peirce,” entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021 revision) -/- “Pragmatist epistemologies often explore how we can carry out inquiries in a self-controlled and fruitful way. (Where much analytic epistemology centres around the concept of knowledge, considered as an idealised end-point of human thought, pragmatist epistemology centres around the concept of inquiry, considered as the process of knowledge-seeking and how we can improve it.) So pragmatists often provide rich accounts of the capacities or virtues that we must possess in order to inquire well, and the rules or guiding principles that we should adopt. A canonical account is Peirce’s classic early paper ‘The Fixation of Belief‘. Here Peirce states that inquiry is a struggle to replace doubt with “settled belief“, and that the only method of inquiry that can make sense of the fact that at least some of us are disturbed by inconsistent beliefs, and will subsequently reflect upon which methods of fixing belief are correct is the Method of Science, which draws on the Pragmatic Maxim described above. This contrasts with three other methods of fixing belief: i) refusing to consider evidence contrary to one’s favored beliefs (the Method of Tenacity), ii) accepting an institution’s dictates (the Method of Authority), iii) developing the most rationally coherent or elegant-seeming belief-set (the A Priori Method).“ — Catherine Legg, “Pragmatism,” entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021 revision). (shrink)

This book provides an introduction to semiotic through readings from classic works in the field. In contrast with descriptions of communication systems based on the methods of empirical linguistics and interpretive studies of artistic means of communication, this text delimits semiotic as a logical study with its foundations in the theories of Greek and medieval logicians and the classifications of Charles Peirce. Clarke defines semiotic as the general theory that attempts to specify the logical features of signs and (...) the similarities and differences among the great variety of forms they can take. He samples readings from the field and explains their role in the development of the subject. His discussion begins with the treatment of signs in the early Greek period, starting with Aristotle and ending with Sextus Empiricus. He proceeds through an examination of the works of the medieval philosophers Augustine and Ockham, of post-Cartesians Arnauld, Reid, and Berkeley, and of the founder of modern semiotic, Charles Peirce. Final chapters cover the major writings of those who have shaped the development of the field in the twentieth century: Morris, Skinner, and Carnap of the behavioral school of semiotic; Saussure, Hjelmslev, Barthes, and Jakobson of the Continental school; and the analytic philosophers Strawson, Bennett, Lewis, and Goodman. Each selection, accompanied by Clarke’s commentary, works to restore the links between semiotic and medieval discussions of signs that inform this work. Throughout, Clarke offers students a history that is also an aid for charting a course through the present-day maze of divergent approaches and conflicting methodologies. (shrink)

Semiotics, the theory of sign and meaning, may help physicians complement the project of interpreting signs and symptoms into diagnoses. A sign stands for something. We communicate indirectly through signs, and make sense of our world by interpreting signs into meaning. Thus, through association and inference, we transform flowers into love, Othello into jealousy, and chest pain into heart attack. Medical semiotics is part of general semiotics, which means the study of life of signs within society. With special reference to (...) a case story, elements from general semiotics, together with two theoreticians of equal importance, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and the American logician Charles Sanders Peirce, are presented. Two different modes of understanding clinical medicine are contrasted to illustrate the external link between what we believe or suggest, on the one hand, and the external reality on the other hand. (shrink)

Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce are two founding fathers of modern semiotics but, up until fairly recently, their theories have fared differentlyon the mainland of China, with the former canonized in university textbooks and the latter banished from academic discussion for political reasons. What this article tries to show is that, thanks to its picto-phonetic origin, the Chinese language lends itself particularly well to theorization from the Peircean perspective, hence the importance of embracing his trichotomous approach (...) to language and other types of signs. (shrink)

Poetic influence—when it involves two strong, authentic poets—always proceeds by a misreading of the prior poet, an act of creative correction that is actually, and necessarily, a misinterpretation. The history of fruitful poetic influence, which is to say the main tradition of Western poetry since the Renaissance, is a history of anxiety, and self-saving caricature, of distortion, of perverse, wilful revisionism without which modern poetry as such could not exist.1Jacques Derrida is a philosopher, not a poet, but his co-optation of (...) the semiotic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce is a clear case of Bloomian misprision, as I hope to demonstrate in the following pages. I shall argue that... (shrink)

As a practicing clinical nurse, a phenomenon I experienced at times was the sudden acute sense that something was going wrong with a person in care at the sub‐critical unit in the hospital where I worked. In fact, many hospital nurses have their story of “something's not right” in relation to a person they were caring for/with, in that the day started with them on a coherent path to healing and then suddenly the nurse feels something is going very wrong, (...) and yet there is nothing observable that would justify such a feeling. This feeling would be called “intuition” by many nurses, a concept most notably theorized in nursing by Patricia Benner in her extensive program of scholarship. Benner defines intuition as “understanding without rationale.” Benner opposes embodied intuition and rational abstract reasoning and creates criteria for the use of each by nursing depending on whether the clinical situation is familiar or novel. The philosophical idea is that the new must be reasoned with a different mode of thought than the familiar. Charles Sanders Peirce was a philosopher of reasoning. He defined logic as the theory of reasoning, which by the end of his career he was declaring was only another name for semiotic. Peirce argued that all reasoning/semiosis is done through signs, or more accurately sign‐activity. Semiotic is the philosophical schema providing the concepts and methods by which semiosis ‐ reasoning ‐ happens. Importantly, semiotic does not oppose different modes of thought, and conceptualizes reasoning as a process that functions in familiar as well as novel situations. In this paper I describe Peirce's philosophy of semiotic. I then provide an example relevant to nursing by conducting a semiosis of the nursing scenario above to show how nursing “works chance,” or novelty, in a way that doesn't need to resort to rational abstract reasoning and yet is different than Benner's notion of intuition. (shrink)

[Note: Picture of Peirce available] Charles S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Signs Essays in Comparative Semiotics Gérard Deledalle Peirce’s semiotics and metaphysics compared to the thought of other leading philosophers. "This is essential reading for anyone who wants to find common ground between the best of American semiotics and better-known European theories. Deledalle has done more than anyone else to introduce Peirce to European audiences, and now he sends Peirce home with some new flare."—Nathan Houser, Director, (...) Peirce Edition Project Charles S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Signs examines Peirce’s philosophy and semiotic thought from a European perspective, comparing the American’s unique views with a wide variety of work by thinkers from the ancients to moderns. Parts I and II deal with the philosophical paradigms which are at the root of Peirce’s new theory of signs, pragmatic and social. The main concepts analyzed are those of "sign" and "semiosis" and their respective trichotomies; formally in the case of "sign," in time in the case of semiosis. Part III is devoted to comparing Peirce’s theory of semiotics as a form of logic to the work of other philosophers, including Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege, Philodemus, Lady Welby, Saussure, Morris, Jakobson, and Marshall McLuhan. Part IV compares Peirce’s "scientific metaphysics" with European metaphysics. Gérard Deledalle holds the Doctorate in Philosophy from the Sorbonne. A research scholar at Columbia University and Attaché at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, he has also been Professor of Philosophy and Head of the Philosophy Department of the universities of Tunis, Perpignan, and Libreville. In 1990 he received the Herbert W. Schneider Award "for distinguished contributions to the understanding and development of American philosophy. In 2001, he was appointed vice-president of the Charles S. Peirce Society. Contents Introduction—Peirce Compared: Directions for Use Part I—Semeiotic as Philosophy Peirce’s New Philosophical Paradigms Peirce’s Philosophy of Semeiotic Peirce’s First Pragmatic Papers The Postscriptum of 1893 Part II—Semeiotic as Semiotics Sign: Semiosis and Representamen—Semiosis and Time Sign: The Concept and Its Use—Reading as Translation Part III—Comparative Semiotics Semiotics and Logic: A Reply to Jerzy Pelc Semeiotic and Greek Logic: Peirce and Philodemus Semeiotic and Significs: Peirce and Lady Welby Semeiotic and Semiology: Peirce and Saussure Semeiotic and Semiotics: Peirce and Morris Semeiotic and Linguistics: Peirce and Jakobson Semeiotic and Communication: Peirce and McLuhan Semeiotic and Epistemology: Peirce, Frege, and Wittgenstein Part IV—Comparative Metaphysics Gnoseology—Perceiving and Knowing: Peirce, Wittgenstein, and Gestalttheorie Ontology—Transcendentals "of" or "without" Being: Peirce versus Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas Cosmology—Chaos and Chance within Order and Continuity: Peirce between Plato and Darwin Theology—The Reality of God: Peirce’s Triune God and the Church’s Trinity Conclusion—Peirce: A Lateral View. (shrink)

C. S. Peirce introduced the term “icon” for sign-vehicles that signify their objects in virtue of some shared quality. This qualitative kinship, however, threatens to collapse the relata of the sign into one and the same thing. Accordingly, the late medieval philosopher of signs John Poinsot held that, “no matter how perfect, a concept [...] always retains a distinction, therefore, between the thing signified and itself signifying.” Poinsot is touted by his present-day advocates as a realist, but I believe (...) that, judged by realist standards, his requirement of minimal dissimilarity backfires. Poinsot thinks that, in analyzing the sign, we should stop before a full merger between sign-vehicle and object is reached. Peirce, by contrast, saw good reason to push the analysis all the way down to one isolated quality. Because such a qualitative merger can lend support to realism, I favour Peirce’s stance. (shrink)

Although we all learn differently, we all need to be able to engage certain fundamental reasoning skills if we are to manoeuvre successfully through life—however we define success. Peirce's philosophy provides us with a framework for helping students develop and hone the ability for making deliberate and well‐considered choices. For, embedded within Peirce's complete body of work is a design for thinking that provides a sturdy foundation for the development of three important learning capabilities. These capabilities are 1) (...) the ability to identify, compare, and contrast qualities, 2) the ability to perform analyses, and 3) the ability to interpret the meaning of signs. Although these capabilities may seem like the sort of skills that only older and academically inclined students can master, even young children and the intellectually challenged can learn to use them as well. Once teachers learn to develop their own intellectual potential by expanding these capabilities within themselves, they will be able to begin bringing about the development of these capabilities in their students. Once identified, developed, and applied to the mastery of educational skills and subject matter, these three fundamental learning capabilities , can form the foundation of a common‐sense approach to educational reform. Peirce asserts that good reasoning must be informed by ethical considerations, which in turn has been informed by the highest of aesthetic impulses. From this, we can extrapolate the importance that an educational model based upon Peirce's philosophy must place upon aesthetic and ethical considerations, as well as logical ones. Once fully understood, the philosophy of education embedded within Peirce's epistemology can revolutionize educational practices at all levels of learning. (shrink)

Despite some notable similarities between the scientific realisms of Sellars and Peirce (such as both being anti-representationalist, and future-directed), in his mature work Science and Metaphysics Sellars explicitly critiqued Peirce’s account of truth, as lacking “an intelligible foundation” (Sellars 1968: vii). In this paper, I explore Sellars’ proposed remedy to Peirce’s purported lack, in his complex and enigmatic account of picturing – a non-discursive ‘mapping’ of the world. I argue that although Sellars’ development of this idea is (...) largely sound, much of what he charges Peirce’s philosophy with missing is actually present there. By means of his semiotic icon / index / symbol distinction, Peirce manages to develop a philosophy of language which effectively coordinates the real order and the order of signification within the very structure of the proposition as he understands it, by contrast to Sellars’ claim that the two orders are merely connected by ‘analogy’. I also argue that in between Sellars’ ambitious account of veridicality, which appears to anticipate a form of scientific self-mensuration, and the dismissive ‘anti-truth’ quietism of neopragmatists such as Rorty, Peirce’s “contrite fallibilism” (Peirce CP 1.14) charts a wise middle path. (shrink)

Peirce introduced Existential Graphs in late 1896, and they were systematically investigated in his 1903 Lowell Lectures. Alpha graphs for classical propositional logic constitute the first part of EGs. The second and the third parts are the beta graphs for first-order logic and the gamma graphs for modal and higher-order logics, among others. As a logical syntax, EGs are two-dimensional graphs, or diagrams, in contrast to the linear algebraic notations. Peirce's theory of EGs is not only a (...) theory of logical syntax but also a proof theory for many logics. A set of transformation rules of graphs defines a proof system for a graphical logic. In this... (shrink)

This work is the intellectual biography of the greatest of American philosophers. Peirce was not only a pioneer in logic and the creator of a philosophical movement pragmatism he also proposed a phenomenological theory, quite different from that of Husserl, but equal in profundity; and long before Saussure, and in a totally different spirit, a semiotic theory whose present interest owes nothing to passing fashion and everything to its fecundity. Throughout his life Peirce wrote continually about sign (...) and phenomenon (or phaneron). Consequently his writings must be studied chronologically if they are not to appear incomprehensible or contradictory. One of the merits of this book is to clarify Peirce's thought by analysing its development chronologically. We follow the evolution of Peirce's thought from his critique of Kantian logic and Cartesianism (Chap. I, “Leaving the Cave”: 1851-1870) to his discovery of modern logic and pragmatism (Chap. II, “The Eclipse of the Sun”: 1870-1887) and finally to a semiotic founded on a phenomenology the base of which is the logic of relations and the crowning-point scientific metaphysics (Chap. III, “The Sun Set Free”: 1887-1914). The book includes a detailed chronology, a general bibliography, and an index. (shrink)

This book presents a systematic interpretation of Charles S. Peirce’s work based on a Kantian understanding of his teleological account of thought and inquiry. Departing from readings that contrast Peirce’s treatment of purpose, end, and teleology with his early studies of Kant, Gabriele Gava instead argues that focusing on Peirce’s purposefulness as a necessary regulative condition for inquiry and semiotic processes allows for a transcendental interpretation of Peirce’s philosophical project. The author advances this interpretation through (...) presenting original views on aspects of Peirce’s thought, including: a detailed analysis of Peirce’s ‘methodeutic’ and ‘speculative rhetoric,’ as well as his ‘critical common-sensism’; a comparison between Peirce’s and James’ pragmatisms in view of the account of purposefulness Gava puts forth; and an examination of the logical relationships that order Peirce’s architectonic classification of the sciences. (shrink)

Peirce's references to Ockham are less frequent and less fulsome both in detail and in praise than his references to Scotus. And if one expects a critique of “the greatest nominalist that ever lived” to be especially revealing, they are also somewhat disappointing. Nevertheless, the comparison and contrast with Ockham offers another occasion to examine the “question of nominalism and realism” which Peirce thought to be so important.

This paper seeks an explanation for the challenges faced by Semantic Web developers in achieving their vision, compared to the staggering near-instantaneous success of the World Wide Web. To this end it contrasts two broad philosophical understandings of meaning and argues that the choice between them carries real consequences for how developers attempt to engineer the Semantic Web. The first is Rene Descartes’ ‘private’, static account of meaning (arguably dominant for the last 400 years in Western thought) which understands the (...) meanings of signs as whatever their producers intend them to mean. The second is Charles Peirce’s still relatively unknown ‘public’, evolutionary account of meaning, according to which the meaning of signs just is the way they are interpreted and used to produce further signs. It is argued that only the latter approach can avoid the unmanageable attempts to ‘preprocess’ interpretation of signs on the Web which have dogged the project in its many stages, and thereby do justice to the scale, rapid changeability and exciting possibilities of online information today. (shrink)

As even a cursory glance at Peirce’s Collected Papers makes apparent, he is an extremely unsystematic and difficult writer. In this paper, I want to sort out some of the main arguments that connect his verificationism with his realism and his metaphysics. I pay particular attention to his contrast between individuals and universals and its bearing on his doctrine of perceptual judgment and abductive inference. In the final section, I turn to two criticisms of Peircean realism urged by (...) Quine and, in conclusion, offer some suggestions as to what is needed for a full critical evaluation of it. (shrink)

C. S. Peirce has been considered in China as the pioneer of American pragmatism, not only within academic circles, but also in the public’s perception. Nonetheless, some Chinese scholars still confuse his theory with that of the other two principal figures in classical pragmatism. However, there are a few Chinese scholars who clearly realize the difference between Peirce’s pragmaticism and other forms of pragmatism. As a result, an increasing number of Chinese books and contributions focus on Peirce’s (...) philosophy. The Selected Writings of C. S. Peirce, edited by Jiliang Tu, were published in 2006, and the translation of The Essential Peirce in two volumes is in process. The translation of The Collected Papers of C. S. Peirce in 8 volumes has been planned under the leadership of Yi Jiang. Chinese Peirce scholars are mainly concerned with the following topics: (1) the historical relation of Peirce to the pragmatist movement in the 19th century; (2) the contribution of Peirce’s logic to the philosophy of logic; (3) Peirce as a pioneer of philosophy of science in the 20th century; (4) the comparative study of Peirce’s semiotics and Saussure’s linguistics; and (5) Peirce’s unique place in the history of Western philosophy. There are a number of views about Peirce, but most Chinese scholars agree that his philosophy had a significant influence on 20th century philosophy in the West as well as in the rest of the world. (shrink)

George M. Searle (1839-1918) and Charles S. Peirce worked together in the Coast Survey and the Harvard Observatory during the decade of 1860: both scientists were assistants of Joseph Winlock, the director of the Observatory. When in 1868 George, a convert to Catholicism, left to enter the Paulist Fathers, he was replaced by his brother Arthur Searle. George was ordained as a priest in 1871, was a lecturer of Mathematics and Astronomy at the Catholic University of America, and became (...) the fourth superior general of his congregation from 1904 to 1909. Among the books he wrote for non-Catholic audiences was Plain Facts for Fair Minds (1895). On the 8th of August of 1895, Peirce found that book in a bookstore and the following day wrote a letter to George Searle developing his strong reservations about the question of the infallibility of the Pope. This letter (L 397) is almost unknown amongst Peirce's scholars. -/- After describing these historical circumstances as a framework, the aim of my paper is to describe Peirce's arguments against papal infallibility presented by George Searle in his book, and the contrast between the genuine scientific attitude and the putative metaphysical notion of absolute truth that is —according to Peirce— behind Searle's defense of infallibility. In this sense, Peirce's fallibilism will be explained with some detail, giving an account also of his practical infallibilism: "The assertion that every assertion but this is fallible, is the only one that is absolutely infallible. But though nothing else is absolutely infallible, many propositions are practically infallible; such as the dicta of conscience" (Minute Logic, CP 2.75, c. 1902). -/- Finally, having in mind the present interest in Peirce's religious ideas it will be suggested that some of Peirce's ideas on infallibility are nearer to contemporary understanding of that issue than Searle's defense. "I would with all my heart join the ancient church of Rome if I could. But your book," —Peirce writes to Searle— "is an awful warning against doing so." -/- . (shrink)

Charles Peirce famously attacked immediate intuition in his early papers, “Questions concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man” and “Some Consequences of Four Incapacities.”1 He argued that all alleged intuitions are really inferences. Although his philosophy developed in many ways throughout the rest of his life, he never gave up on the implications of this. His elaborate theory of interpretation and semiotics presented a full-blown alternative to any version of a Cartesian theory of immediate intuition in consciousness. I find this (...) whole line of argument persuasive as far as it goes.The East Asian traditions of aesthetic theory, by contrast, seem to assert just the opposite... (shrink)

The paper argues that contemporary consciousness studies can profit from Charles S. Peirce’s philosophy of consciousness. It confronts mainstream tendencies in contemporary consciousness studies, including those which consider consciousness as an unsolvable mystery, with Peirce’s phenomenological approach to consciousness. Peirce’s answers to the following contemporary issues are presented: phenomenological consciousness and the qualia, consciousness as self-controlled agency of humans, self-control and self-reflection, consciousness and language, self-consciousness and introspection, consciousness and the other, consciousness of nonhuman animals, and the (...) question of a quasi-consciousness of the physical universe. A detailed account of Peirce’s three modes of consciousness is presented: primisense, qualisense or feeling-consciousness, altersense, and medisense, the consciousness of cognition, thought, and reasoning. In contrast to consciousness studies that establish a rather sharp dividing line between conscious and unconscious states of mind, Peirce adopts the principle of synechism, the theory of continuity. For him, consciousness is a matter of degree. An important difference between Peirce’s concept of qualia and current theories of qualia in human consciousness is discussed. The paper shows how consciousness, according to Peirce, emerges from unconscious qualia and vanishes into equally unconscious habits. It concludes with a study of the roles of qualia, habit, and self-control in Peirce’s theory of signs, in particular in qualisigns and symbols, and the question of signs as quasi-conscious agents in semiosis. (shrink)

Bradley contends that the semiology of Charles Sanders Peirce , the founder of pragmatism, is a standing challenge as much to Gadamerian hermeneutics as to Saussure’s structuralism and its deconstructionist progeny. For Peirce physical matter itself is one specific mode of the activity of semiosis or sign interpretation. The paper outlines the central point and purpose of Peirce’s general metaphysics and describe the basic features of his theory of signs.

Neopragmatism has been accused of having ‘an experience problem’. This paper begins by outlining Hume's understanding of perception according to which ideas are copies of impressions thought to constitute a direct confrontation with reality. This understanding is contrasted with Peirce's theory of perception according to which percepts give rise to perceptual judgments which do not copy but index the percept (just as a weather-cock indicates the direction of the wind). Percept and perceptual judgment thereby mutually inform and correct one (...) another, as the perceiver develops mental habits of interpreting their surroundings, so that, in this theory of perception, as Peirce puts it: “[n]othing at all…is absolutely confrontitional”. Paul Redding has argued that Hegel’s “idealist understanding of logical form” ran deeper than Kant’s in recognising that Mind is essentially embodied and located, and therefore perspectival. Peirce’s understanding arguably dives deeper still in distributing across the space of reasons (and thus Being) not just Mind’s characteristic features of embodiedness and locatedness, but also its infinite corrigibility. (shrink)

Jacques Derrida’s philosophy greatly disrupted traditional Western metaphysics by questioning our understanding of the relationship between language and reality. This paper examines how Derrida deconstructs logocentric and phonocentric perspectives that have influenced Western thought, focusing on his analyses of Plato’s Cratylus and Phaedrus, as well as Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics. For Derrida, the meaning in language is always shifting, suggesting that absolute truths, as traditionally conceived in Platonic metaphysics, are inherently unstable. His concept of différance illustrates (...) the fluid nature of meaning and the limitations of language. In his critique of “Plato’s Pharmacy,” he explores the inclusive potential of writing, which contrasts with Plato’s preference for speech and dialectics. While Plato is concerned with texts reaching readers he deems “inappropriate” for not fully grasping their meaning, Derrida views access to texts as positive and equitable. He argues that writing removes hierarchical barriers of interpretation, empowering readers and promoting inclusivity and diverse voices. Through this approach, he not only reshapes Western philosophical thinking but also encourages continuous questioning of the truths we often take for granted, expanding philosophy’s relevance to social and political aspects of everyday life. Derrida believes that philosophy should be accessible to all and not limited to privileged academic circles. He critiques elitism and advocates for philosophy to adapt to new social demands, challenging outdated rhetorical models and institutional authority. Derrida’s deconstruction encourages us to consider perspectives beyond our own backgrounds and experiences. By breaking down barriers that limit which voices are acknowledged and valued, we support more open and equitable intellectual and social systems. (shrink)

In this article, I examine the reconstruction that Peirce does on analytic/synthetic Kantian division, supported by his phenomenology, semiotic and pragmatism. The analysis of Peirce’s writings on mathematic suggests a notion of a posteriori and necessary analytical truths, that is, propositions that express one belief justified in experience, but whose generalization is valid for all the possible worlds. This was a new idea the time that Peirce formulated it, in 19th Century, and it contrasts with semantic-analytical tradition (...) from Frege and was contested by Quine in 1950’s. Peirce’s notion of analyticity is a result of his discovery of the logic of relatives, which led the philosopher to revise the deductive reasoning, dividing it into corollarial and theorematic, which in turn allow us to understand why mathematics is, simultaneously, deductive and non-trivial. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to determine whether Charles S. Peirce's direct criticisms of the transcendental method in philosophy are effective. I will present two different views on transcendental arguments by introducing two ways of accounting for Kant's transcendental project. We will see that Peirce's criticisms are directed against a picture of transcendental philosophy which is in line with what I will call the justificatory account of Kant. Since this view is totally in contrast to what (...) I will call the alternative account, Peirce's criticisms of the former cannot be considered a refutation of the latter. As far as Peirce's criticisms attack only justificatory accounts of transcendental philosophy, they are not in conflict with transcendental readings of his philosophy along the lines of the alternative account. (shrink)

The author states that his purpose in this work is not primarily Peirce scholarship but epistemology. But the concentration is on Peirce’s theory of knowledge, a concentration which centers around what the author thinks is Peirce’s most valuable contribution to the subject—a solution to the problem of skepticism. In contrast to Descartes’ assertion that knowledge must be based on primitive intuitions, Peirce contends that all thought is in process, an organically intertwined system of inferences, a (...) continuous flow of signs. Because thinking is a process in time, it is always fallible. Rather than this being a hindrance to knowledge, Davis sees this as the key to Peirce’s escape from skepticism, for the knowledge so described is a continuous self-corrective process, a web which, if we but make the effort to untangle it, will continue to reward us with advance toward the truth. Of more revolutionary importance to the theory of knowledge, according to Davis, is Peirce’s theory of abduction, his answer to the problem of how synthetic knowledge is possible. Abduction is the act of making up explanatory hypotheses. It issues in insights which are the outgrowth of creativity and imagination. The test of these unifying ideas is their appropriateness or ability to satisfy our sensibilities. It is instinct, or that to which we are naturally bent, which guides the abductive process. Throughout this book great emphasis is placed on the importance of this to Peirce and to an adequate epistemology of instinct, feelings, the work of the heart, or sensibility. The scientist, as Davis sees it, is thus akin in method to the creative artist. While Davis intends also to show how this aspect of Peirce is consistent with his pragmatic maxim, their relationship is never quite clarified in this work. Nevertheless, the book is a well-written and very readable treatment of Peirce’s epistemology. It also includes a great many comparisons with similar and contrasting positions as found in a wide range of contemporary and classical philosophical treatises.—B.A.M. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to present Peirce’s semiotics as an important factor in the genesis of Alfred North Whitehead’s doctrine of symbolism. I argue that Peirce had a direct impact on Whitehead’s earliest reflections on symbolism generally and mathematical symbolism particularly. From his first encounter with Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotic doctrine, contrasted to that of George F. Stout, Whitehead derived a general doctrine of signs which he never abandoned and which formed the basis of his (...) mature doctrine of symbolism. While in the first years of his Harvard professorship, Whitehead suffered a second, indirect, influence from Peirce, through the American philosophers he interacted with. His mature philosophy of perception is both the development and application of the doctrine derived from Peirce and Stout thirty years before, and a reply to the realist doctrines which stressed the symbolic nature of perceptual knowledge, most importantly Santayana’s. Whitehead’s own brand of realism rests on the assumption of a pansemiotic principle, obscurely and mediately derived from Peirce. (shrink)

In her book Deviant Logic, Susan Haack argued for a “pragmatist” conception of logic. This conception holds that, logic is a theory on a par with other scientific theories, differing only from such theories by its degree of generality and the choice of a particular logic is to be made based on pragmatist principles, namely, economy, coherence, and simplicity. This view was contrasted, in this book, with an “absolutist” view of logic, according to which logical laws are necessary and immune (...) to revision. Two decades later, however, Haack acknowledged, in the Introduction to an enlarged version of the same book, that she would not approach the question of the revisability of logic in the same way she did earlier. What was missing in her first book was a distinction between the question of the necessity of the laws of logic and the question of our fallibility in recognizing which are the true laws of logic and what structures are essential to representation. She also acknowledged that this change was mainly influenced by Peirce, with whose work she had “only the most superficial acquaintance twenty years ago”. In this context, this paper has two aims: to show that, in Philosophy of Logics, we can find elements that reveal a tension between her early “pragmatic” views and her changing views on the nature of logic; to present some hypotheses about the role Peirce may have had in this change. (shrink)

In Experience and Education, John Dewey described how learning should occur in schools, and what the results of that learning should be. Critiquing both the traditional educational practices of his time and the progressive schools that took some of their ideas from his own work, Dewey put forth what he called the "educative" experience (LW 13: 11) as the aim of formal instruction. The educative experience is affectively engaging, intelligently directed, and disciplined by the demands of purposeful and social activity. (...) It leads to growth in possibilities for perception and action. Dewey contrasted the educative experience to those experiences he labeled as "mis-educative" (LW 13: 11), which, lacking some or all of .. (shrink)

Peirce and Royce were giants of American Philosophy at the beginning of the last century. Their contributions still have a high impact on current debates in metaphysics, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. This is especially true for Peirce and only to a slightly lesser extent for Royce. Their contributions in philosophical theology and philosophy of religion is even more relevant because they did not participate in so-called religion-science-wars. Neither of them refuted or ignored modern natural sciences. In (...) contrast, Darwin, modern physics and contemporary mathematical logics played decisive roles in the development of their theories, especially in their metaphysical cosmologies and their... (shrink)

Göstergenin bilimsel olarak incelenme sürecinde etkin rol oynayan zihinsel arka plan farklılığı, temel unsurlarının şekil ve formlarında görülen değişiklikler başta olmak üzere, gösterme eyleminin işlevi ve gayesine ilişkin birtakım görüş ayrılıklarına zemin hazırlar. Nitekim göstergebilimin kurucuları Ferdinand de Saussure ve C. S. Peirce, göstergeyi birbirinden farklı iki bağlamda ele alır. Saussure göstergebilimin, dilbilimi de içine alan bir bilim dalı olarak kurulması gerekliliğine değinmekle yetinirken Peirce, onu, mantık ve anlam-yorum çalışmalarına hız kazandırmak amacı ile bilimsel zemine taşır. (...) Peirce’ün göstergeye bakışı, yalnızca işaret olgusuna dair geliştirdiği bir teori olarak değil; ayrıca bir anlam ve bilgi teorisi olarak da incelenmelidir. Bu nedenle makalenin ilk bölümünde Peirce’ün mantık alanındaki düşüncelerinin alt yapısını oluşturan varlık kategorilerine yer verilecektir. Ardından onun pragmatisizm düşüncesi ve klasik mantık eleştirisi üzerinden göstergeye ve işaret ettiği anlama bakışı değerlendirilecektir. Üçüncü bölümde ise gösterge teorisi, detaylı olarak incelenecek; Peirce’ün felsefî pozisyonun semiyozis terimleri üzerindeki belirleyici etkisine değinilecektir. The difference in mental background, which plays an active role in the scientific analysis of the sign, paves the way for some disagreements regarding the function and purpose of the act of signifying, especially the changes in the shapes and forms of its basic elements. As a matter of fact, the founders of semiotics, Ferdinand de Saussure and C. S. Peirce, consider the sign in two different contexts. While Saussure is content to mention the necessity of establishing semiotics as a branch of science that also includes linguistics, Peirce carries it to the scientific ground with the aim of accelerating the logic and meaning-interpretation studies. Peirce, who developed his own categories of entities, deals with them in three stages. These; firstness, in which the entity is a pure quality before it exists in the world, secondness, in other words, the form in which this quality is embodied outside; and the thirdness, in other words, the state in question, which has gained the ability to serve as a representation in order to appeal to a mind and be interpreted. In this last category, being becomes an interpretable sign that points to an object for a certain meaning. The point where the categories of being and Peirce's theory of sign meet is that the types of sign, object and interpretant are shaped according to these three categories. (shrink)

Journal Name: Semiotica Issue: Ahead of print.

The article offers an alternative story about the structuralism in science, philosophy, and semiotics based on the exposition of Ch. S. Peirce’s philosophical project – pragmatism. Contemporary tendency to consider structuralism as naïve and dead, is put in contrast with the reassessment of the potential of structuralism in natural scien- ces and linguistic anthropology.

The multi-dimensionality of the term ‘pragmatism’ is by now a well-known phenomenon. Much has been made of the Peircean pragmatic theory of meaning vis-a-vis the Jamesian pragmatic theory of truth. Sometimes the contrast is made too quickly. This results in the undervaluing of important similarities between the two thinkers.

Louis Loeb has argued that Hume is pessimistic while Peirce is optimistic about the attainment of fully stable beliefs. In contrast, we argue that Hume was optimistic about such attainment but only if the scope of philosophical investigation is limited to first-order explanatory questions. Further, we argue that Peirce, after reformulating the pragmatic maxim to accommodate the reality of counterfactuals, was pessimistic about such attainment. Finally, we articulate and respond to Peirce's objection that Hume's skeptical arguments (...) in T 1.4.1 and his commitment to common sense indicate that Hume was confused about whether we could have stable beliefs at all. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to describe in some detail the actual relationship between Charles S. Peirce and Alfred N. Whitehead, paying particular attention to the Peircean notions of science and metaphysics, with the conviction that this contrast can help to understand better the scope and depth of C. S. Peirce’s thought.

This study is an attempt to clarify Peirce's position as to the problem of universals by contrasting it with that of Duns Scotus. It aims to show that even thourgh Peirce claimed that he was following Scotus, there are certain marked differences between the two theories. The most important aspect of this, however, is the productive interplay between Peirce and scholastic realism, which yields some lines along which a certain "pragmatization" of the latter might be effected.

Gérard Deldalle is among the world’s most important students of American philosophy, and one of the very best Peirce scholars writing today. Charles S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Signs collects seventeen of Deledalle’s essays on the theory and application of Peirce’s semeiotic. Many of these essays appear for the first time in English, and span the author’s work over fifty years. The book is organized in four parts: “Semeiotic as Philosophy,” “Semeiotic as Semiotics,” “Comparative Semiotics,” and “Comparative Metaphysics.” (...) Throughout, Deledalle aims to bring Peirce into focus by means of a contrast with more familiar figures and ideas. This brief notice cannot do justice to the wealth of insight these essays exhibit, so I resign to provide a sense of the book’s contents, and to identify what are in my view the highlights and points of interest. (shrink)

Biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme” by which he meant a unit of culture. Dan Dennett continued by defining a meme as a bunch of bits of information. This paper explores the “meme” and how it is semiotic, both in its technical sense and in its popular sense and explores how memes signify both in terms of classical semiotics and also in terms of post-structuralist thought.

(Also titled "A Place for Peirce's Categories?"in Meaning without Analyticity.) This book arose from the author’s recent dissertation written under the Gerhard Schönrich at Munich. It focuses on Peirce’s theory of categories and his epistemology. According to Baltzer, what is distinctive in Peirce’s theory of knowledge is that he reconstrues objects as “knots in networks of relations.” The phrase may ring a bell. It suggests a structuralist interpretation of Peirce, influenced by the Munich environs. The study (...) aims to shows how Peirce’s theory of categories supports his theory of knowledge and how “question concerning a priori structures of knowledge” are transformed within this relational framework. A chief critical target is David Savan’s semiotics, specifically the idea that “the multiplicity of development of the categories” is “conditioned by nothing but the indefiniteness of the categories.” But in contrast with this, if there is any indefiniteness in the categories, they cannot fully direct their own application, and this is to say regarding them “that our knowledge is never absolute but always swims, as it were, in a continuum...” If the doctrine of continuity applies to the categories, they also have a continuum to swim in. (shrink)

Short’s assertion that Peirce lacked a cohesive philosophical system is critically examined, and the interconnectedness of Peirce’s 1884–1893 “cosmology” with other aspects of his work is explored, countering Short’s claims of its limited systematic relevance. Additionally, Short’s claim that Peirce “expanded empiricism empirically” is scrutinized, and his interpretation of Peirce’s account of perception is criticized. By contrasting Short’s anti-system reading, I highlight the importance of studying Peirce’s philosophy holistically.

Most specialists agree that Peirce upholds his abstract definitions of reality and truth simultaneously and consistently with his pragmatist clarifications of those concepts. But some might assume that his pragmatist clarifications (the third grade of clearness) restrict the extensions of abstract definitions (the second grade of clearness), such that anything real must both be independent of what anyone thinks about it, per the abstract definition, and be an object of the would-be “final opinion”, per the pragmatist clarification. I call (...) this reading Interpretive Dependence of the second grade of clearness on the third grade. In contrast, on Interpretive Independence, which I defend here, a concept can have a different extension on the second grade than it has on the third grade, such that it could be true, in a purely abstract sense, that there are realities that can never be known (metaphysical realism). “True” here must also be interpreted only according to an abstract definition, namely, one which Peirce endorses in 1906 and which, I argue, is a deflationary definition. Interpretive Independence not only allows Peirce to explain the intuitive appeal of metaphysical realism, while at the same time rejecting it, it also allows him to explain how there can be truths about fictional objects and truths in pure mathematics. (shrink)

The Appreciation of Charles Peirce’s religious dimension has been slow to mature, due in part to the disparate nature of his prodigious output, but also due to a certain blindness of his interpreters. Michael Raposa, in his essay “Peirce and Modern Religious Thought” (1991), argues: “Some early interpreters of Peirce, like Hartshorne and Goudge, argued that his religious perspective was inconsistent with the basic thrust of his philosophy. Many later commentators have implicitly endorsed this argument by systematically (...) ignoring the religious dimension of his thought.” In contrast, Raposa suggests “that what Peirce had to say about religion is remarkably continuous with what he wrote about a variety of .. (shrink)

Der Fokus auf die Sprache bestimmte die Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts, die sowohl die Dekonstruktion der Metaphysik als auch den Tod des Subjekts verkündete. Der Psychoanalytiker Jacques Lacan führte das Subjekt des Begehrens wieder in den philosophischen Diskurs ein und entwickelte aus der Struktur der Sprache eine neue, symbolische Logik des Unbewussten. Die Logik des Signifikanten, deren Geschichte diese Arbeit nachzeichnet, um sie zu transzendieren, stellt die Frage nach der Dialektik von Signifikant und Begriff, Sprache und Logik, Bewusstem und Unbewusstem, (...) Ich und Subjekt, Gesetz und Begehren, Denken und Sein. Durch die Funktionen der Metonymie, der Metapher und des Stepppunktes sowie über das Schema der vier Diskurse werden die Tropen der traditionellen philosophischen Logik - Begriff, Urteil und Schluss - neu interpretiert. Das Peirce'sche Konzept der Abduktion ermöglicht es, sowohl den Borromäischen Knoten Lacans - Imaginäres, Symbolisches und Reales - wie auch die transzendentale Dialektik und Ontologie der Moderne, die auf Kants und Hegels Revolutionen der Denkungsart zurückgehen, schlusslogisch zu begründen. (shrink)