In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question frequently arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or ontological property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role that a thing can be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.
Peirce's definition of a sign defines it in relation to its object and its interpretant sign, and thus it defines signhood in relative terms, by means of a predicate with three places. In this definition, signh
ood is a role in a triadic relation, a role that a thing bears or plays in a given context of relationships — it is not as an absolute, non-relative property of a thing-in-itself, one that it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.
Peirce's definition of a sign defines it in relation to its object and its interpretant sign, and thus it defines signhood in relative terms, by means of a predicate with three places. In this definition, signh
ood is a role in a triadic relation, a role that a thing bears or plays in a given context of relationships — it is not as an absolute, non-relative property of a thing-in-itself, one that it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/
See that post with different algorithms in metabole
See the journal French Metablog with today different posts
No comments:
Post a Comment