Security as completeness

a peircean semiotic reading of the psychology of attachment

Matteo Santarelli

Peirce’s anti-psychologism hinges on two main assumptions. First, logic and psychology belong to two separate disciplines – respectively, the normative sciences and the experimental sciences. Second, externalism must be understood as a crucial and inescapable epistemological criterion. The introspectionist illusion, according to which individuals have direct and epistemologically flawless access to their own internal states, should be dismissed. As Colapietro (2003) and Calcaterra (2006) observe, Peirce’s standpoint is far different from the Kantian classical account of anti-psychologism. This original take on anti-psychologism leaves room for a functional distinction between logic and psychology, emerging from a semiotic and communicative continuity. This means that psychology, unlike logic as a formal doctrine of signs, will be epistemologically appropriate for dealing with internal psychological states, on the condition that this inquiry be focused on the communicative processes through which these internal states are expressed and conveyed.

Publication details

DOI: 10.4000/ejpap.1009

Full citation:

Santarelli, M. (2017). Security as completeness: a peircean semiotic reading of the psychology of attachment. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 9 (1), pp. n/a.

This document is available at an external location. Please follow the link below. Hold the CTRL button to open the link in a new window.