Embodiment of the Interpretant in a Sign: Reconsider the Concept of a Sign as a Factor of Social Construction in the Frame of Embodied and Disembodied Mind
Volodymyr Kovchak
Department of Philosophy, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Universytetska St. 1, 79000 Lvivhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8938-8766
Abstract
Social reality is semiotically constructed through a sign and sign relations as the mechanism of mediation and creation of “being together”. Social reality is in a constant creative process of dynamic change. It is provided by an intellectual interpretation of the mechanism itself, the real world, the being of other, signs and sign relations, through which a person finds the meaning of his/her being and is included in the overall construction of social reality. Therefore, the dynamic movement of thought to knowledge, to sense, to the joy of everyday life is made through an interpretation as a communicative and semiotic process of searching and involving the general community to another being. Historically, the most important models of signs and sign mediation is the sign model by F. de Saussure and Ch.S. Peirce. These models have long been criticized, but remained fundamental in the socio-semiotic mechanism of mediation between subject and object of knowledge and the construction of social reality. Following the publication of Ch. Taylor’s book “Sources of the self”, the concept of F. de Saussure and Ch.S. Peirce clearly gained social significance, in light of which many hidden mechanisms of semiotic construction of social reality become clear. Open-mindedness, which is the core process of semiosis, has a great importance for the construction of social reality. Basically, thinking is directed at the construction of a new body, the interpretant is directed at constructing a new interpreter. Of course, the construction of the body and physicality is not core one, but a peripheral process. However, it is not devoid of social value and also has potential in the construction of social community “being together”. Intelligent processes are rooted in the daily functioning of the body as their carrier, and the interpretant therefore provides an essential concrete interpreter. If the interpretant aimed against the interpreter as its carrier, then the question arises about “mechanism of truth” of the interpretant.
Keywords:
perception, concept, construction of social reality, interpretant, mind, conceptualizationReferences
Bazaluk O., The Philosophy of Cosmos: the Place of Human at the Scale of Earth and Cosmos. Chapter One, Philosophy and Cosmology 16 (2016), p. 28-42. Google Scholar
Rorty R., Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton 1979. Google Scholar
Terepiszczy S., Futurology as a subject of social philosophy, Studia Warmińskie 52 (2015), p. 63-67. Google Scholar
Баумейстер A., Буття і благо: монографія, Вінниця 2014. Google Scholar
Карась А., Реальність, репрезентація, семіоз і філософія [лекція], http://www.old.lnu.edu.ua/teachers/file.php?file=821 (12.01.2017). Google Scholar
Карась А., Реальність, репрезентація, семіоз і філософія [лекція], http://www.old.lnu.edu.ua/teachers/file.php?file=821 (12.01.2017). Google Scholar
Лекторский В., Реализм, антиреализм, конструктивизм и конструктивный реализм в современной философии и науке, Конструктивистский подход в эпистемологии и науках о человеке, Москва, 2009. Google Scholar
Ленк Г., К методологической интеграции наук с интерпретационистской точки зрения, Вопросы философии 4 (2004), с. 50-55. Google Scholar
Лотман Ю., Об искусстве, С-Петербург 1998. Google Scholar
Попов B., Физическая реальность и язык, С.-Петербург 2004. Google Scholar
Соссюр Ф. де, Курс общей лингвистики, Москва 1998. Google Scholar
Тейлор Ч., Джерела себе: творення новочасної ідентичності, Київ 2005. Google Scholar
Department of Philosophy, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Universytetska St. 1, 79000 Lviv
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8938-8766
