Hello List,
I am having the idea that maybe semiotics is non-humanist. But what would be humanist? Examples:
- Kant said, that humans do not have value, but dignity, and that you should not treat them merely as means, but always as aims too.
- In Buddhism people (and other organisms) have an innate Buddha-nature.
- In Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions, and in Brahmanism people have an immortal soul. It is arguable however, whether religions are humanist or rather their antithesises are. Depends on interpretation, I guess, and whether one conceptualizes a benign or a wrathful God.
In Semiotics it is all about signs, performance. In Capitalism it is about the value in the sense of performance people give for serving the rich ("human capital"). In Semiotics it is about the value/performance for the phaneron. The interpreting system is not denied, but mostly ignored. So I donot suspect,that semiotics is antihumanist, just nonhumanist, like just not talking about the interpreters, but only about the interpretants. I guess that is ok for some time, but at some point maybe it would be ok too to take the interpreting systems, like people and other organisms into account too, and combine semiotics with systems theories? What do you think?
Best,
Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
