Speculative rhetoric, methodeutic, and Peirce’s hexadic sign-systems
-
Tony Jappy
Abstract
By 1903 Peirce had defined logic broadly as a “Philosophy of Representation,” an over-arching, organically organized cenoscopic science formed of speculative grammar, critic, and speculative rhetoric. Corresponding respectively to the three trichotomies of the sign that he had established at this time, the three branches of the grand logic concerned definitions of the sign, inquiry into the relation between sign and object and, finally, inquiry into the relation between sign and interpretant. In this latter case he hesitated between the labels “speculative rhetoric” and “methodeutic.” Also noticeable at this time is a hesitation concerning the scope of such an inquiry: the “logical study of the theory of inquiry” as opposed to “the doctrine of the general conditions of the reference of Symbols and other Signs to the Interpretants which they aim to determine,” a conception of logic reminiscent of the traditional art of persuasion. This polarity seems to have been confirmed in the 1904 paper “Ideas, Stray or Stolen about Scientific Writing” with its reference to the efficient written communication of the scientist’s results. It shows Peirce not so much adapting his speculative rhetoric to the traditional notion as explaining how the “abstract” cenoscopic science might help to organize the empirical idioscopic rhetorical sciences by determining three modes of specialization each with its specific divisions. However, in a letter to Lady Welby in October of that same year he introduced an initial hexadic sign-system which, following the earlier triadic classification, was composed of three supplementary relational criteria involving the sign respectively with its immediate object, its immediate interpretant, and its dynamic interpretant, all based on the more complex hexadic conception of semiosis announced in a letter to lady Welby dated December 23, 1908. It is noteworthy that the way the sign is classified with respect to the three interpretants in the 1904 letter corresponds closely to aspects of the modes of specialization described in the earlier paper. In 1906 he expressed his preference for the term “methodeutic” and its essentially methodological scope: as late as 1911, for example, he continued to define the third branch of logic as showing “how to conduct an inquiry.” Moreover, both methodeutic and the former over-arching philosophy of representation seem to have figured less prominently in his later theoretical preoccupations. Peirce may have been too involved in developing his Graphs and the hexadic and, ultimately, decadic systems of semiotic classification to define fully a “method of methods.” He might, too, have rejected the label “rhetoric” as being too close to the traditional art of persuasion whose three modes of specialization he had described in 1904. Alternatively, it is possible that his evolving understanding of the three interpretants absorbed any lingering rhetorical complexion his theory of scientific methodology may have had, and rendered it redundant in this more complex and comprehensive conception of semiosis. It is this latter possibility that the paper seeks to examine.
References
Fisch, Max. 1983. Peirce as scientist, mathematician, historian, logician and philosopher. In Max H. Fisch & Achim Eschbach (eds.), “Studies in logic” by members of the Johns Hopkins University (1883), vii–xxviii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.1.01fisSearch in Google Scholar
Hardwick, Charles S. (ed.). 1977. Semiotic and significs: The correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kent, Beverley. 1987. Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the classification of the sciences. Montreal: McGill/Queen’s University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liszka, James. 2000. Peirce’s new rhetoric. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 36(4). 439–476.Search in Google Scholar
Murphey, Murray. 1993. The development of Peirce’s philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1958. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1998. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 2 (1893–1913), Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.]Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Multimodality in argumentation
- The thinness of multimodal argument: The problem of under–specification
- Discussing discourse modalities in argument theory: Reconsidering a paradigm
- Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal/visual divide
- The thickness of multimodal argument: The virtues of condensation
- Visual rhetorical argumentation
- Multimodal meaning-construction and the logical structure of arguments
- It’s all about logics?! Analyzing the rhetorical structure of multimodal filmic text
- The argumentative and rhetorical function of multimodal metonymy
- Multimodality in the analysis, design, and support of argumentative activities
- On the production of a multimodal news item: An argumentative approach
- Argumentation in participant-driven photo interviews: A case in ICT for development in Mozambique
- The collaborative dimensions of argument maps: A socio-visual approach
- Peirce's rhetoric and methodeutic
- Introduction: Peirce’s rhetoric and methodeutic
- Peirce’s “Ideas, stray or stolen, about scientific writing” and the relationship between methodeutic, speculative rhetoric, and the universal art of rhetoric
- The problematics of truth and solidarity in Peirce’s rhetoric
- Speculative rhetoric, methodeutic, and Peirce’s hexadic sign-systems
- Methodeutic and the order of inquiry
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Multimodality in argumentation
- The thinness of multimodal argument: The problem of under–specification
- Discussing discourse modalities in argument theory: Reconsidering a paradigm
- Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal/visual divide
- The thickness of multimodal argument: The virtues of condensation
- Visual rhetorical argumentation
- Multimodal meaning-construction and the logical structure of arguments
- It’s all about logics?! Analyzing the rhetorical structure of multimodal filmic text
- The argumentative and rhetorical function of multimodal metonymy
- Multimodality in the analysis, design, and support of argumentative activities
- On the production of a multimodal news item: An argumentative approach
- Argumentation in participant-driven photo interviews: A case in ICT for development in Mozambique
- The collaborative dimensions of argument maps: A socio-visual approach
- Peirce's rhetoric and methodeutic
- Introduction: Peirce’s rhetoric and methodeutic
- Peirce’s “Ideas, stray or stolen, about scientific writing” and the relationship between methodeutic, speculative rhetoric, and the universal art of rhetoric
- The problematics of truth and solidarity in Peirce’s rhetoric
- Speculative rhetoric, methodeutic, and Peirce’s hexadic sign-systems
- Methodeutic and the order of inquiry
