> On Jun 21, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > You said, "If I understand Peirce, then the logic of indices works via icons." > > What, then, distinguishes indices from icons in a context for logic of > indices? > _______ > > Does, then, a logic of icons work via indices? The question naturally > follows, what distinguishes icons from indices in a context for logic of > icons?
Again I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Could you be more specific about context? I think the answer depends upon the type of analysis you are doing. To the degree an icon involves similarity there’s a sort of indexical relationship. (Both objects can be taken in a derived fashion as pointing to each other) But when you ask about logic you’re asking about something more specific that that I assume. It’s important to keep in mind the icons and indices are both types of signs. Are you speaking with your question to the context of “On the Algebra of Logic”? My sense is that we have to apply the pragmatic maxim to understand these questions. To ask what distinguishes icons from indexes we must ask how we’d measure such differences. There it seems to me the answer is one works by resemblance relative to some quality whereas the other works by directing us (either directly such as with a gesture or indirectly). Now as soon as we start talking about indirect indices then of course things get complex quickly. However the basic difference we are keeping at hand seems to be the difference between resemblance and pointing/gesturing.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
