Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Any sign must determine an interpretant in order to count... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Connected to 2 discussions

    Supports→A final sign that terminates the semiotic process cannot be a genuine sign.
    Supports→Infinite chains of signs are conceptually necessary in Peirce's early account of signs.

    Any sign must determine an interpretant in order to count as a sign.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A final sign that terminates the semiotic process cannot be a genuine sign.A final sign that terminates the semiotic process has no interpretant.Infinite chains of signs are conceptually necessary in Peirce's early account of...Interpretants are themselves signs.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    +3 moreShow less
    Signs are interpretants of earlier signs, meaning the chain extends backward as ...Since interpretants are signs, each interpretant in turn must determine a furthe...Therefore, a final sign lacks the necessary condition for being a sign.

    Similar

    Any sign must be an interpretant of a previous sign in order to count ...92%Since interpretants are signs, each interpretant in turn must determin...88%Where signs can be codified, there is more room for precision in inter...83%A first sign has no preceding sign of which it is the interpretant.83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: peirce-semiotics
    View source passageHide passage
    To see this, imagine a chain of signs with either a first or a last sign. The final sign that terminates the semiotic process will have no interpretant; if it did, that interpretant would function as a further sign and generate a further interpretant, and the final sign would, in fact, not terminate the process. However, since any sign must determine an interpretant to count as a sign, the final sign would not be a sign unless it had an interpretant. Similarly, a first sign could not be the inte

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective