Humanity and Inhumanity of the Sign: Two Views of Man

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11240%2F23%3A10469237" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11240/23:10469237 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=.7GLKp9wVw" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=.7GLKp9wVw</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.46854/fc.2023.1s9" target="_blank" >10.46854/fc.2023.1s9</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Humanity and Inhumanity of the Sign: Two Views of Man

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The present article centers its focus on the conceptual clash involving selected definitions of the human and the non-human within the field of sign theory, particularly examining two nearly paradigmatic perspectives: structuralist semiology and Peircean semiotics. The text&apos;s argumentation critically departs from the conventional viewpoint put forth by Ernest Cassirer. This perspective, widely prevalent not only in the humanities but also in the social sciences (e.g., M. Weber, T. Parsons) and even the natural sciences (e.g., T. Deacon), frequently regards the &quot;symbol&quot; as the defining boundary between the human and the non-human. The discussion further delves into the context of structuralist anti-humanism, which endeavors to redefine subjectivity by drawing from structural linguistics. Offering an alternative perspective to both Cassirerian and structuralist views of representation, the article introduces the semi- otics of C. S. Peirce. According to John Deely, who serves as the primary source of inspiration for this paper, Peirce&apos;s semiotics opens the door to a distinct, inferentialist, and methodologically more comprehensive understanding of the sign and the symbol, reshaping the understanding of the relationship between humans and the world inhabited by entities that, while they do not possess language, are capable of making inferences and employing signs - whether they be animals or machines. These non-linguistic, non-representational yet communicative entities largely remained in conspicuous within structuralist semiology. Subjective structures, seemingly waiting to be infused with human meaning, to be fully represented within the concept of language, to become subjects in a supposedly universal science of signs. At this juncture, the text departs from structuralist premises and, aligning with Peirce&apos;s perspective, follows Deely in proposing that what sets apart human comprehension of signs from other forms of sign-interpreting agencies is the capacity to understand the sign as a sign. In essence, this represents the unique ability of human animals, even if unconscious, to engage in semiotics.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Humanity and Inhumanity of the Sign: Two Views of Man

Popis výsledku anglicky

The present article centers its focus on the conceptual clash involving selected definitions of the human and the non-human within the field of sign theory, particularly examining two nearly paradigmatic perspectives: structuralist semiology and Peircean semiotics. The text&apos;s argumentation critically departs from the conventional viewpoint put forth by Ernest Cassirer. This perspective, widely prevalent not only in the humanities but also in the social sciences (e.g., M. Weber, T. Parsons) and even the natural sciences (e.g., T. Deacon), frequently regards the &quot;symbol&quot; as the defining boundary between the human and the non-human. The discussion further delves into the context of structuralist anti-humanism, which endeavors to redefine subjectivity by drawing from structural linguistics. Offering an alternative perspective to both Cassirerian and structuralist views of representation, the article introduces the semi- otics of C. S. Peirce. According to John Deely, who serves as the primary source of inspiration for this paper, Peirce&apos;s semiotics opens the door to a distinct, inferentialist, and methodologically more comprehensive understanding of the sign and the symbol, reshaping the understanding of the relationship between humans and the world inhabited by entities that, while they do not possess language, are capable of making inferences and employing signs - whether they be animals or machines. These non-linguistic, non-representational yet communicative entities largely remained in conspicuous within structuralist semiology. Subjective structures, seemingly waiting to be infused with human meaning, to be fully represented within the concept of language, to become subjects in a supposedly universal science of signs. At this juncture, the text departs from structuralist premises and, aligning with Peirce&apos;s perspective, follows Deely in proposing that what sets apart human comprehension of signs from other forms of sign-interpreting agencies is the capacity to understand the sign as a sign. In essence, this represents the unique ability of human animals, even if unconscious, to engage in semiotics.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60401 - Arts, Art history

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA22-17984S" target="_blank" >GA22-17984S: Ohniskové obrazy: násilí a nelidskost v současném umění a mediální kultuře</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Filosofický časopis

ISSN

0015-1831

e-ISSN

2570-9232

Svazek periodika

71

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

Special issue 1

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

31

Strana od-do

9-39

Kód UT WoS článku

001163048000002

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85186171213