These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
One powerful characteristic of Peirce's approach is the following: Larry Purss wrote:
For Gadamer a sign is a tool. Conceived *as* a sign [tool] a word is an instrument that the SUBJECT employs for its OWN ends.Gadamer asks, is it sufficient to think of language *just* or *merely* as a MEANS of communication?
For Peirce a sign is not a means of communication at all. The sign is part of a triad along with interpretant and object, and there is no subject there. For French semiology the sign is a message sent by the subject to the object, and this is the source of the idealism Gadamer complains of. Peirce's standpoint opens up natural processes and aesthetic processes for objective analysis and gives an objective basis for communication as well.
Andy __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca