Morris vs. Peirce

Posted on January 23, 2009
Filed Under Peirce, Philosophy | Leave a Comment

Most people who learn about Peirce end up learning about him indirectly. Even a lot of people who study semiotics or related disciplines never really get to read Peirce beyond perhaps a few major papers (typically from his pre-1890 period). The problem is that Peirce, as presented, tends to come more from Charles Morris whose Signs, Language and Behavior tends to still remain very influential. (It was published back in 1946 and can probably be partially credited with keeping Peirce at least somewhat relevant until the renaissance of Peirce studies the past decade or so. A lot of its influence is more indirect but you can see it if you look for it.)

The problem is that Morris’ semiotics is much more a behavioralist reading of Peirce rather than a good presentation of Peirce’s thought on signs.
What are the differences? (I’m largely following Auke van Breemen here)

For Morris, in contradistinction to Peirce, sign processes:
(1) do not include anything mental (stimulus, response and conditioning through reinforcement will do);
(2) do not include processes in inorganic nature;
(3) do not cover all forms of behavior;
(4) do not always generate new signs

Related posts:

  1. Peirce & OOP
  2. What is the Subconscious?
  3. Peirce and Idealism
  4. Mental Processes Below Consciousness
  5. Peirce and Things
  6. Peirce, Heidegger and Ready at Hand

Comments

Leave a Reply