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
    Signs are interpretants of earlier signs, meaning the cha... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Infinite chains of signs are conceptually necessary in Peirce's early account of signs.

    Signs are interpretants of earlier signs, meaning the chain extends backward as well as forward.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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 Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Infinite chains of signs are conceptually necessary in Peirce's early account of...
    Interpretants are themselves signs.
    Since interpretants are signs, each interpretant in turn must determine a furthe...

    Similar

    Phenomena are signs or evidence of a larger order that must be interpr...81%Infinite chains of signs are conceptually necessary in Peirce's early ...81%If the preceding sign fails to have a proper interpretant, that preced...81%Any sign must be an interpretant of a previous sign in order to count ...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: peirce-semiotics
    View source passageHide passage
    As previously noted, part and parcel of Peirce’s early account of signs is that an infinity of further signs both proceed and precede from any given sign. This is a consequence of the way Peirce thinks of the elements of signs at this early stage and seems to stem from his idea that interpretants are to count as further signs, and signs are interpretants of earlier signs. Since any sign must determine an interpretant in order to count as a sign, and interpretants are themselves signs, infinite c

    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