The Problem of the Essential Icon

American Philosophical Quarterly 45 (3):207-232 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Charles Peirce famously divided all signs into icons, indices and symbols. As recent decades have seen mainstream analytic philosophy of language broaden its traditional focus on symbols to recognise the "essential indexical", can the moral be extended to icons? Is there an “essential icon”? If so, what exactly would be "essential" about it? I argue that essential iconicity does exist, and a prime example is logical form, insofar as it cannot be discursively described, only 'shown'. Danielle Macbeth’s radical new “expressivist” interpretation of Frege’s logic and Charles Peirce’s existential graphs are mobilized in support of this claim, which offers an original new direction to the foundations of logic.

Author's Profile

Cathy Legg
Deakin University

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-10-08

Downloads
980 (#22,502)

6 months
118 (#48,127)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?