{"title":"符号学物种:哲学中与动物的对话","authors":"Silver Rattasepp, K. Kull","doi":"10.5840/AJS2016112316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Animals are treated in philosophy dominantly as opposed to humans, without revealing their independent semiotic richness. This is a direct consequence of the common way of defining the uniqueness of humans. We analyze the concept of ‘semiotic animal’, proposed by John Deely as a definition of human specificity, according to which humans are semiotic (capable of understanding signs as signs), unlike other species, who are semiosic (capable of sign use). We compare and contrast this distinction to the more standard ways of drawing the distinction between humans and animals.","PeriodicalId":42572,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS","volume":"32 1","pages":"35-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Semiotic Species: Deelying with Animals in Philosophy\",\"authors\":\"Silver Rattasepp, K. Kull\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/AJS2016112316\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Animals are treated in philosophy dominantly as opposed to humans, without revealing their independent semiotic richness. This is a direct consequence of the common way of defining the uniqueness of humans. We analyze the concept of ‘semiotic animal’, proposed by John Deely as a definition of human specificity, according to which humans are semiotic (capable of understanding signs as signs), unlike other species, who are semiosic (capable of sign use). We compare and contrast this distinction to the more standard ways of drawing the distinction between humans and animals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"35-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/AJS2016112316\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/AJS2016112316","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Semiotic Species: Deelying with Animals in Philosophy
Animals are treated in philosophy dominantly as opposed to humans, without revealing their independent semiotic richness. This is a direct consequence of the common way of defining the uniqueness of humans. We analyze the concept of ‘semiotic animal’, proposed by John Deely as a definition of human specificity, according to which humans are semiotic (capable of understanding signs as signs), unlike other species, who are semiosic (capable of sign use). We compare and contrast this distinction to the more standard ways of drawing the distinction between humans and animals.