Meaning Redefined: Reflections on the Scholastic Heritage Conveyed by John Deely to Contemporary Semiotics

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS Pub Date : 2018-05-15 DOI:10.5840/AJS201851436
G. Sonesson
{"title":"Meaning Redefined: Reflections on the Scholastic Heritage Conveyed by John Deely to Contemporary Semiotics","authors":"G. Sonesson","doi":"10.5840/AJS201851436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the point of view of semiotics, the essential contribution of John Deely consists in having made us all aware of the richness of the Scholastic heritage, and to have explained it to us latter-day semioticians. Even for those, who, like the present author, think that semiotics was alive and well between the dawn of the Latin Age, and the rediscovery of Scholastic realism by Peirce, the notions coined by the Scholastic philosophers are intriguing. To make sense of scholastic notions such as ens reale and ens rationis is not a straightforward matter, but it is worthwhile trying to do so, in particular by adapting these notions to ideas more familiar in the present age. Starting out from the notions of Scholastic Realism, we try in the following to make sense of the different meanings of meaning, only one of which is the sign. It will be suggested that there are counterparts to ens rationis, not only in the thinking of some contemporary philosophers, but also, in a more convoluted way, in the discussion within cognitive science about different extensions to the mind. The recurrent theme of the paper will be Deely's musing, according to which signs, unlike any other kind of being, form relations which may connect things which are mind-dependent (ens rationis) and mind-independent (ens reale). The import of this proposition is quite different if is applied to what we will call the Augustinian notion of the sign, or to the Fonseca notion, which is better termed intentionality. In both cases, however, mind-dependence will be shown to have a fundamental part to play. Following upon the redefinition of Medieval philosophy suggested by Deely, we will broach a redefinition of something even wider: meaning even beyond signs. (Less)","PeriodicalId":42572,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS","volume":"34 1","pages":"65-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/AJS201851436","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

From the point of view of semiotics, the essential contribution of John Deely consists in having made us all aware of the richness of the Scholastic heritage, and to have explained it to us latter-day semioticians. Even for those, who, like the present author, think that semiotics was alive and well between the dawn of the Latin Age, and the rediscovery of Scholastic realism by Peirce, the notions coined by the Scholastic philosophers are intriguing. To make sense of scholastic notions such as ens reale and ens rationis is not a straightforward matter, but it is worthwhile trying to do so, in particular by adapting these notions to ideas more familiar in the present age. Starting out from the notions of Scholastic Realism, we try in the following to make sense of the different meanings of meaning, only one of which is the sign. It will be suggested that there are counterparts to ens rationis, not only in the thinking of some contemporary philosophers, but also, in a more convoluted way, in the discussion within cognitive science about different extensions to the mind. The recurrent theme of the paper will be Deely's musing, according to which signs, unlike any other kind of being, form relations which may connect things which are mind-dependent (ens rationis) and mind-independent (ens reale). The import of this proposition is quite different if is applied to what we will call the Augustinian notion of the sign, or to the Fonseca notion, which is better termed intentionality. In both cases, however, mind-dependence will be shown to have a fundamental part to play. Following upon the redefinition of Medieval philosophy suggested by Deely, we will broach a redefinition of something even wider: meaning even beyond signs. (Less)
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
意义的重新定义:约翰·迪利对当代符号学的学术传统反思
从符号学的角度来看,约翰·迪利的主要贡献在于让我们都意识到学术遗产的丰富性,并向我们现代的符号学家解释了这一点。即使对于那些像本作者一样认为符号学在拉丁时代的黎明和皮尔斯重新发现学术现实主义之间仍然存在的人来说,学术哲学家们创造的概念也很有趣。理解诸如ens-rereale和ens-rerationalis之类的学术概念并不是一件简单的事情,但值得尝试这样做,特别是通过将这些概念适应当今时代更熟悉的思想。从学术现实主义的概念出发,我们试图在以下几点上理解意义的不同含义,其中只有一个是符号。有人认为,不仅在当代一些哲学家的思想中,而且以一种更复杂的方式,在认知科学中关于心智不同延伸的讨论中。这篇论文反复出现的主题将是迪利的沉思,根据这种沉思,符号与任何其他类型的存在不同,形成了关系,可以将依赖于心智(ens-regilis)和独立于心智(en-rereale)的事物联系起来。如果将这一命题应用于我们所称的奥古斯丁符号概念,或者应用于丰塞卡概念,即更好地称为意向性,那么这一命题的意义就大不相同了。然而,在这两种情况下,精神依赖都将发挥重要作用。继迪利对中世纪哲学的重新定义之后,我们将对更广泛的东西进行重新定义:甚至超越符号的意义。(减)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊最新文献
Navigating the Labyrith of De-sign Multiple Perspectives in Semiotics, Illustrated with Tagmemic Analysis of Tic-Tac-Toe in advance The Semiotic Square Applied to Silence in advance The Indeterminacy of Reality and the Fallibility of Science in advance Toward an Adequate Theoretical Framework for Interpreting Complex Signification in Music in advance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1