Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/271417244
CITATIONS READS
20 684
1 author:
AHTI Pietarinen
Tallinn University of Technology
277 PUBLICATIONS 1,815 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Abduction in the Age of Fundamental Uncertainty (ERC, PUT 1305) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by AHTI Pietarinen on 27 January 2015.
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
Peirce and the logic of image*
Abstract: Peirce divided hypoicons into images, diagrams, and metaphors. For
diagrams, he developed a logical theory of graphs: many-dimensional linguistic
expressions analyzing meaning by virtue of iconicity of logical form. He neglect-
ed the logic of images as well as metaphors, however. Metaphors relate to non-
standard meanings that combine complex diagrammatic representations. Images
are elementary constituents of qualitative space. I will argue that the interpreta-
tion of images corresponds to the interpretation of non-logical vocabularies. This
raises the question of whether images are also linguistic, in other words whether
the simple qualities they partake of are the simple qualities of some propositional
content. I will argue that Peirce favored a picture theory of language that takes
images to interpret elementary characters of objects that constitute propositions.
He did not ascribe images with properties of propositions, as that would have
rendered them non-hypoiconic signs.
Peirce was a visual interpreter of language. This led him to a lifelong search for
methods and systems that would assist him in doing “logical analysis” (CP 3.443,
1896, “The Regenerated Logic”). For him, logical analysis was a methodology that
analyses meaning and rigorously captures formal structures of thought and rea-
soning. He felt a weighty need for diagrammatizing and animating the inferential
content of thought, and frequently complained of having a singular incapacity to
think within the confines of the verbal or written, linear structure of language. “I
do not think I ever reflect in words,” he writes in a 1909 manuscript. “I employ
visual diagrams, firstly, because this way of thinking is my natural language of
* Presented at the meeting “Peirce and Image” held during the Semiotics Summer School in
Urbino, Italy, July 2006. My thanks to the organizers and commentators. Supported by the
University of Helsinki “Excellence in Research” Grant No. 2023031, “Peirce’s Pragmatistic
Philosophy and Its Applications,” 2006–2008, Principal Investigator A.-V. Pietarinen.
Peirce was “to be an aid to logical analysis” (CP 4.420). Third, an existential graph
“is a logical graph governed by a system of representation” concerning “one rec-
ognized universe, real or fictive,” and graphs represent “some fact existing in that
universe” (CP 4.421). We can note here a smooth passage from syntax to seman-
tics, “a system of representation” that relies on his universes of discourse idea
from the antedating algebraic investigations of logic. He worked out the theory of
existential graphs in extraordinary proportions, coming up, among other things,
with sound and complete systems of propositional and first-order predicate logic,
as well as with a number of systems of modal, quantificational modal, and
higher-order logics (Pietarinen 2006b).
Might anything comparable be attempted for the other two classes of hypoi-
cons, namely, images and metaphors? I will discard the question of metaphors,
which I have discussed in Pietarinen (2008) and which concerns non-standard
meanings of language arising from non-standard use of diagrams with modali-
ties. I will instead focus on the role of images in Peirce’s logical theory of graphs.
What is there to be found in Peirce’s conception of images from a logical point of
view? The following couple of remarks are meant to clarify the philosophical
grounds for the future study of the logic of images.
According to Peirce, as noted, images are “First Firstnesses,” hypoicons
“which partake of simple qualities.” Simple qualities are described regardless of
anything else, independently of other signs, and so have a certain immediacy
that objects might lack, such as sense and feeling. They are comprehended di-
rectly or immediately, without mediation. They may be “tones of consciousness,”
as Peirce once put it (CP 7.530, “Consciousness,” undated). For those who fancy
Peirce’s semeiotic lingo, they are evoked by “iconic sumisigns” (CP 2.317, 1903,
“Syllabus”). I take iconic sumisigns to correspond to predicate terms in the sym-
bolic mode of expression; Peirce sometimes terms them words or rhemas. They
are the firstness of symbols. The other two classes of symbols are propositions or
sentences and arguments or text (CP 2.369, 1901, “Propositions”).
The interplay between symbols and hypoicons is thus particularly impor-
tant. Peirce took it that to interpret images, the use of symbols is indeed neces-
sary (CP 4.479, c.1903, “On Existential Graphs”). But that runs the risk of images
losing their presumed character of being hypoicons. And that, I shall argue, in-
deed happens. According to Peirce, one of the defining characters of symbols
is that they grow and evolve: “every symbol is a living thing” (CP 2.222, 1903,
“The Ethics of Terminology”). But they also possess a certain original, “core”
or “stable” meaning that Peirce took to be iconic in its essential form. He writes
that “every symbol is, in its origin, either an image of the idea signified, or a
reminiscence of some individual occurrence, person or thing, connected with
its meaning, or is a metaphor” (CP 2.222). What Peirce is asserting here is a
ages are conceived through symbols is closely correlated with the processes of
how non-logical vocabularies are interpreted in logic. But unlike interpretations
of symbols and intellectual signs, these processes are uncontrollable and singu-
lar, and do not go by way of self-controlled habits. Instead, they go by way of what
might be called physiognomic processes, such as judging character by appear-
ance. An example from Peirce himself is “that a large and prominent nose is
associated with push and energy” (CP 7.256, 1901, “Notes on Science”). Such
processes determine what “simple qualities” the images contained in the phe-
mic sheet partake of what he termed the “universal field of interconnected
Thought.”
Second, Peirce rejected such physiognomic processes (which may include
conceptions, fears, hopes, desires, expectations, and so on) as having any role to
play in general modes of action and behavior constitutive of the meaning of intel-
lectual signs. And that general mode of constitution is what his philosophy of
pragmaticism is all about (Pietarinen and Snellman 2006). Thus, he was left with
non-physiognomic, general processes, which from the point of view of logical
theories are the processes connected with constructing symbolic interpretations
of complex diagrams and complex logical graphs.
Third, a symbolic interpretation is a reminiscence of “some individual occur-
rence” (CP 2.222), in other words, of interpreted diagrams on the phemic sheet
that are composites of images and other iconic signs. Such processes are logical
and semantic, and are constituted by the activities of the Utterer and the Inter-
preter, who act according to the given spatial and inductive structure of the dia-
gram. (This is the so-called “endoporeutic” interpretation involving numerous
pragmatic factors, see Pietarinen 2006a: ch. 6.) The activities are general and
guided by stable, self-controlled tendencies in choosing right subgraphs to pro-
ceed and in finding right objects from the universe of discourse to be the values
for the occurrences and identities. Essentially, these tendencies are functions
from possible situations to actions. In the contemporary parlance of game theory,
they are the strategy profiles of the players playing the game of interpretation.
Peirce’s pragmaticism is indeed closely connected with the contemporary theory
of games. It provides both the philosophical basis as well as the logic for the study
of the meaning of intellectual signs. There is no room for psychology or uncon-
scious elements of thought in that study.
Fourth, images are isolated spots that are not connected to occurrences be-
fore the appearance of identity lines that could be attached to the hooks of the
spots. The diagrammatic counterpart of images is spots with empty hooks, with-
out anything that occupies those hooks, without anything could make them inter-
pretable. The symbolic counterpart of such an unoccupied spot is a predicate
term or an unsaturated rhema that has some arity but no variables in its argument
places. However, symbols do not capture the essence of what it is to “see images”
that are devoid of propositional content. Witness the following passage:
For example, you look at something and say, “It is red.” Well, I ask you what justification
you have for such a judgment. You reply, “I saw it was red.” Not at all. You saw nothing in
the least like that. You saw an image. There was no subject or predicate in it. It was just one
unseparated image, not resembling a proposition in the smallest particular. It instigated
you to your judgment, owing to a possibility of thought; but it never told you so. Now in all
imagination and perception there is such an operation by which thought springs up; and its
only justification is that it subsequently turns out to be useful. (CP 1.538, 1903, “The First-
ness of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness”)
One can make a predication only after attaching dots or lines to the hooks of spots
that hit upon some object in the universe of discourse. That operation is second-
ary to the one of seeing an image of a quality. Should the attachments be absent,
the assertion will be incomplete and lack a subject and predicate altogether.
Let me speculate that something like this happens in autism, a neurodevel-
opmental disorder in which patients tend to think entirely in terms of firstnesses
of hypoicons. Patients suffering from autism have their minds devoid of the sec-
ondness of the relationships such as indexical signs that could cater icons with
concrete information to hook their inferential thoughts with reality. They see and
think in terms of iconic “pictures” (Grandin 1995), images in their phaneron that
nevertheless lack the semantic component of the universes of discourses that
could exhibit the representational patterns of those vital relationships.
Fifth, the previous passage also contains a key to what Peirce is after in stat-
ing that “any image is a ‘composite photograph’ of innumerable particulars”
(CP 2.441, c.1893, “The Grammatical Theory of Judgment and Inference”). Peirce
frequently alluded to the notion of a percept as a point of comparison with im
ages that is ominously psychologistic (“res percepta,” CP 7.619, 1903, “Telepathy
and Perception”): A percept “is an image or moving picture or other exhibition”
and has an “uncontrollable” operation of “judging what it is that the person
perceives” following its formation (CP 5.115, 1903, “The Reality of Thirdness”).
Like percepts, images are not representations: they do not stand for or intend
anything.
We can contrast this fifth point with the idea of a spot in logical diagrams.
Spots are isolated regions of the phemic sheet that are supposed to have certain
distinguishing qualities. A property is a topological entity in the manifold of a
phemic sheet. But at the same time, spots are collections of all that the sheet rep-
resents at any particular location of the space singled out to compose the spot in
question. Like percepts, spots themselves do not represent or stand for anything.
It is the sheet upon which spots are drawn that represents those “innumerable”
particular entities that there may be in the areas of the universe of discourse
marked out by spots.
I hope that the role and nature of images in Peirce’s diagrammatic logic has
thus been tolerably explained. Finally, I would like to note a couple of similarities
as well as dissimilarities of the iconic character of Peirce’s logic with picture theo-
ries of language, or what more accurately could be called Wittgenstein’s picture
theory of elementary propositions. Two main clauses from Wittgenstein’s Tracta-
tus are of particular interest here, namely, that “A logical picture of facts is a
thought” (Proposition 3) and that “A proposition is a truth-function of elementary
propositions” (Proposition 5). From the perspective of Peirce’s iconic logic, what
a picture of facts is, namely, what interpretation a given assertion yields as its
final cause, is a “picture of the action of a mind in thought” (MS 298: 1). In actual
fact, a picture of a fact is a dynamic, moving picture of such mental action and
not a static snapshot or immutable image. Those pictures are mediated by the
phemic sheet, representing the evolution of thought via its simple constituents,
that is, via images. And images themselves are the constituents that correspond
to Tractarian elementary propositions. Thus the pictures of Wittgenstein’s ele-
mentary propositions are deeply connected with Peirce’s notion of spots in the
phemic sheet.
That propositions are truth functions of elementary propositions preserves
even greater pictorial character in Peirce’s theory than in Wittgenstein’s, since the
truth-functionally complete operations themselves are pictorial, that is, are topo-
logical and iconic. For instance, negation-as-an-incision and conjunction-as-
juxtapositionis precisely what Wittgenstein was lacking in his picture theory. He
considered negation, for instance, as a process of switching the polarity of a prop-
osition. This goes some way towards the Peircean idea of a cut or an incision
around those regions of the phemic sheet that need to be negated. But in Peirce’s
theory, all propositions, including any truth-functional composites of proposi-
tions, are at root iconic and thus pictorial.
To remark on some of the most notable differences between the thinking of
these two logicians, the atomicity of elementary propositions is an example of an
assumption we do not find in Peirce’s theory. The continuity of the phemic sheet
and the continuous connectivity between spot-images make any hard-and-fast
mutual independence of atomic assertions impossible. Recall also that Peirce
was motivated in his diagram logic by finding an iconic basis for all reasoning,
especially necessary (deductive) reasoning, much more than Wittgenstein was.
I have argued for the following points: (i) Images are components of a wide
conception of a non-symbolic language just as diagrams and metaphors are, (ii)
symbolic interpretations of images instantiate non-habitual “physiognomic” pro-
cesses, and (iii) the elementary constituents of logical diagrams are images
References
Grandin, Temple. 1995. Thinking in pictures: My life with autism. New York: Vintage.
Hilpinen, Risto. 1982. On C. S. Peirce’s theory of the proposition: Peirce as a precursor of
game-theoretical semantics. The Monist 65. 182–188.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931–1966. 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.]
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1967. Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as
identified by Richard Robin, Annotated catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. [Reference to Peirce’s manuscripts will be
designated MS.]
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 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.]
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko. 2006a. Signs of logic: Peircean themes on the philosophy of language,
games, and communication (Synthese Library 329). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko. 2006b. Peirce’s contributions to possible-worlds semantics, Studia
Logica 82. 345–369.
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko. 2008. Iconic logic for metaphors. In Proceedings of the sixth
international conference of cognitive science, Yonsei University, 317–320. Seoul: Korean
Society for Cognitive Science.
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko & Lauri Snellman. 2006. On Peirce’s late proof of pragmaticism. Acta
Philosophica Fennica 78. 275–288.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.
Bionote
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (b. 1971) is full professor at the University of Helsinki
〈ahti-veikko.pietarinen@helsinki.fi〉. His research interests include logic, philos-
ophy, pragmatics, and semiotics. His publications include Game theory and lin-
guistic meaning (ed., 2007).