Omne symbolum de symbolo: the Traces in Peirce that Derrida didn't Pursue
Abstract
Jacques Derrida says that Peirce goes very far in the direction that he calls the deconstruction of the transcendental signifier. He speaks in almost glowing terms of his semiotics, isolating some key ideas in Peirce’s thought to strengthen the argument he makes in Of Grammatology. In spite of the similarities, I want to make clear in this paper that there are important differences between his grammatology and Peirce’s semiotics. I’ll make this argument by following out the traces in Peirce that Derrida didn’t pursue.References
Derrida, Jacques. 1974. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Traducido por Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
Peirce, C.S. 1931. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Cambridge M.A.: Harvard University Press. Charles Hartshorne y Paul Weiss (eds.): vv.1–6. 1931–1935; Arthur W. Burks (ed.): vv.7–8, 1958.
Peirce, C.S. 1992. The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 1 (1867– 1893), Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Nathan Houser y Christien J.W. Kloesel, (eds).
Peirce, C.S. 1981. Writings of Charles S. Peirce, A Chronological Edition, Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN.: Indiana University Press.
Ransdell, Joseph, M. “On the Use and Abuse of the Immediate/Dynamical Object Distinction”. Tomado de: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutc- sp/ransdell/useabuse.htm
Short, T.L. 2004. “The Development of Peirce’s Theory of Signs” en The Cambridge Companion to Peirce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Cheryl Misak, (ed.).
