Peirce ou la philosophie comme science

Signs of prehistory. A Peircian semiotic approach to lithics

“…Semiotics are therefore considered as ‘the quasi-necessary or formal doctrine of signs’ (Deledalle 1979, our translation), and it is based on Kantian phenomenology as a theory of phenomena and not of appearance, since in Kant’s view, the phenomenon is not appearance but ‘what appears’ (Kant 2017, our translation). However, to differentiate his theory from the point of view of certain psychologizing aspects in Kant (Tiercelin 2013), Peirce named it: ‘phaneroscopy’ or theory of categories understood as ‘a description of what is in the presence of the spirit or in consciousness as it appears in the different genres of consciousness.’ (Peirce 1978, 67, our translation). The creation of the neologism ‘phaneron’ from the Greek word ‘ phaneron ’ (neutral of ‘ phaneros ’), meaning ‘what shows itself’, allows one to refer specifically to the appearance of things as they are, rather than being influenced by the subjectivity of the observer (Deledalle 1990).…”

“…The theory was based on the systemic work of Ludwig Von Bertalanffy (Von Bertalanffy et al 1973) and the ergonomics-anthropotechnics work of Pierre Rabardel (1995). Éric Boëda furthermore integrated a techno-functional and technogenetic approach using concepts derived from the research of the philosopher of technology Gilbert Simondon , such as those of 'individuation' or 'concretization of technical objects' (Simondon 1958;Boëda 1997;2001;2013). This brought a new structural way of studying lithics in which the lithic artefact is perceived as a structure carrying three entities or techno-functional units (TFU) that coexist and interact in the general functioning of the technical object: the TFU(t) or transformative (or cutting) part, the TFU(p) or prehensive part and the TFU(e) or energy-receiving part (Fig.…”

“…Can we reach a prehistoric meaning of these objects, so far removed from us in time and space, without fear of committing a counter-meaning? This article proposes to examine the possibility of introducing a full Peircian semiotic reading (Deledalle 1979;1990;1993;Peirce 1978), taking a techno-structural approach to lithic objects (Boëda 1992;2001;2013;Dauvois 1976;Lepot 1993). The Peircian vision, rooted in the pragmatist tradition, is based on the trichotomy of the sign: the subdivision of the sign into first, a representamen (R), what appears to us of the object; second, an object (O), which causes its appearance; and third, a interpretant (I), the possibility that the sign must be interpreted.…”