Elements of Peircean phenomenology: From categories to signs by way of grounds
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
It is curious facts that Peirce scholars tends to take the three Peircean categories for granted, whereas Peirce himself claimed they must be derived by means of phenomenology, later rebaptized phaneroscopy. As I have suggested elsewhere, this is the essential difference between Peircean and Husserlean phenomenology, which are in other respects identical, whether or not there is a historical connection. I have tried to show that the meanings of the three categories, so differently epitomized in Peirce's numerous writings, can (more or less) be reduced to common denominators. Quite independently of this, I suggested in some earlier work that, by taking our point of departure in Peirce's notion of "ground" as being that which differentiates the different kinds of signs, we can account for iconicity, indexicality, and symbolicity, quite apart from their embodiment in signs. The task of the present paper is to investigate to what extent this two threesomes can be related to each other.
|Research areas and keywords||
Subject classification (UKÄ) – MANDATORY
|Early online date||2019 Mar 21|
|Publication status||Published - 2019|