Abstract
Biosemiotics belongs to a class of approaches that provide mental models of lifesince it applies some semiotic concepts in the explanation of natural phenomena. Such approaches are typically open to anthropomorphic errors. Usually, the main source of such errors is the excessive vagueness of the semiotic concepts used. If the goal of biosemiotics is to be accepted as a science and not as a priorimetaphysics, it needs both an appropriate source of the semiotic concepts and a reliable method of adjusting them for biosemiotic use. Charles S. Peirce’s philosophy offers a plausible candidate for both these needs. Biosemioticians have adopted not only Peirce’s semiotic concepts but also a number of metaphysical ones. It is shown that the application of Peirce’s basic semiotic conceptions of sign and sign-process (semiosis) at the substantial level of biosemiotics requires the acceptance of certain metaphysical conceptions, i.e. Tychismand Synechism. Peirce’s method of pragmaticism is of great relevance to biosemiotics: 1. Independently of whether Peirce’s concepts are used or even applicable at the substantial level of biosemiotics, Peirce’s method remains valuable in makingbiosemiotics and especially in adjusting its basic concepts. 2. If Peircean semeiotic or metaphysics is applied at the substantial level of biosemiotics, pragmaticism is valuable in clarifying the meaning and reference of the applied Peircean concepts. As a consequence, some restrictions for the application of Peirce in biosemiotics are considered and the distinction of Peirce’s philosophy from the 19th century idealistic Naturphilosophieis emphasized
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Artmann, Stefan (2006). Two Alternative Ways of Synthesizing Biological Knowledge through Semiotics. This volume.
Barbieri, Marcello 2006. Editorial. This volume.
Barbieri, Marcello 2002. Has Biosemiotics come of age? Semiotica, 139(1): 283–295. Reprinted in this volume with a Postscript.
Bickhard, Mark H. 1998. A process model of the emergence of representation. In: Farré, George L. & Oksala, Tarkko (eds.), Emergence, Complexity, Hierarchy, Organization (Selected and edited papers from ECHO III). (Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica 91.) Espoo: Finnish Academy of Technology, 263–270.
Bradie, Michael 1986. Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology, Biology and Philosophy 1(4): 401–459.
Brent, Joseph 1998 (1st ed. 1993). Charles Sanders Peirce. A Life. (2nd ed.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Brier, Søren 2003. The Cybersemiotic Model of Communication: An Evolutionary View on the Threshold between Semiosis and Informational Exchange. Triple C 1(1): 71–94. Electronic journal: http://triplec.uti.at/files/tripleC1(1)_Brier.pdf.
Campbell, Donald T. 1974. Evolutionary epistemology. In: Campbell, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science. Selected Papers. (Ed. E. Samuel Overmann.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1988.
Campbell, Donald T. 1997. From Evolutionary Epistemology Via Selection Theory to a Sociology of Scientific Validity. (Ed. Celia Hayes & Barbara Frankel.) Evolution and Cognition 3(1): 5–38.
Deledalle, Gérard 2000. Charles S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Emmeche, Claus & Hoffmeyer, Jesper 1991. From language to nature: the semiotic metaphor in biology. Semiotica 84(1/2): 1–42.
Fisch, Max H. 1982. Introduction. In: Kloesel et al. (eds.), Writings of Charles S. Peirce. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, xv-xxxv.
Fisch, Max H. 1986. Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism. (Ed. Kenneth L. Ketner and Christian Kloesel), Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana University Press.
Hoffmeyer, Jesper 1996. Signs of Meaning in the Universe. (En Snegl På Vejen: Betydningens naturhistorie, 1993; transl. Barbara Haveland.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hoffmeyer, Jesper & Emmeche, Claus 1991. Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In: Anderson, Myrdene & Merrell, Floyd (eds.), On Semiotic Modeling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 117–166. Reprinted with annotations in Journal of Biosemiotics 1 (2005): 35–85.
Kant, Immanuel 1781/1787. Critique of Pure Reason, (Kritik der reinen Vernunft, transl. J.M.D. Meiklejohn), Prometheus Books; Amherst (NY) 1990.
Kent, Beverley 1987. Charles S. Peirce. Logic and the Classification of the Sciences. Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Kull K. (1999). Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: a view from biology. Semiotica 127(1/4), 385–414.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lorenz, Konrad 1973. Die Rückseite des Spiegels: versuch einer Naturgeschichte menschlichen Erkennens. München: Piper.
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1935, 1958. Collected papers of C. S. Peirce. Vols. 1–6 (eds. Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss). Vols. 7–8 (ed. Arthur W. Burks). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Cited as CP.]
Peirce, Charles S. 1992, 1998. Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings. Vols. 1–2. (Ed. Nathan Hauser et al.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Cited as EP.]
Peirce, Charles S. 1982–1986. Writings of Charles S. Peirce. Vols. 1–3 (Ed. Christian Kloesel et al.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Cited as W.]
Saussure, Ferdinand de 1916. Course in General Linguistics. (Transl. Roy Harris, 1983). Chicago & La Salle (Ill.): Open Court 1997.
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1985. Ausgewöhlte Schriften. Vols. 1–6 (ed. M. Frank). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Sebeok, T.A. 1963. Communication in Animals and Men. Language 39: 448–466.
Sebeok, T.A. 1976 Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Vehkavaara, Tommi 2002. Why and how to naturalize semiotic concepts for biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies 30(1): 293–313.
Vehkavaara, Tommi 2003. Natural self-interest, interactive representation, and the emergence of objects and Umwelt: an outline of basic semiotic concepts for biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies 31(2): 547–587.
Vehkavaara, Tommi 2006. Limitations on applying Peircean semeiotic. Biosemiotics as applied objective ethics and esthetics rather than semeiotic. Journal of Biosemiotics 1(2) (in print).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vehkavaara, T. (2008). From the Logic of Science to the Logic of the Living. In: Barbieri, M. (eds) Introduction to Biosemiotics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4814-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4814-9_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4813-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4814-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)