Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 1
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/27/interpreter-and-interpretant-selec…
All,
Questions about the relation between “interpreters” and “interpretants”
in Peircean semiotics have broken out again. To put the matter as
pointedly as possible, because I know someone or other is bound to —
In a theory of three‑place relations among objects, signs, and
interpretant signs, where indeed is there any place for the
interpretive agent?
By way of getting my feet on the ground with the issue I'll do
what always helped me before and review a small set of basic texts.
Here is the first.
Figure 1. The Sign Relation in Aristotle
•
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/awbrey-awbrey-1995-e…
❝Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or impressions
(pathemata) of the soul (psyche); written words are the signs of words
spoken. As writing, so also is speech not the same for all races of men.
But the mental affections themselves, of which these words are primarily
signs (semeia), are the same for the whole of mankind, as are also the
objects (pragmata) of which those affections are representations or
likenesses, images, copies (homoiomata).❞ (De Interp. i. 16a4).
References —
Aristotle, “On Interpretation” (De Interp.), Harold P. Cooke (trans.),
pp. 111–179 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William
Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk
of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
•
https://web.archive.org/web/20001210162300/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquir…
•
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
•
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inqui…
•
https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inqu…
Regards,
Jon
cc:
https://www.academia.edu/community/5wYa3L
cc:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/111829392534115897