On the Objects and Interpretants of Signs: Comments on T. L. Short's Peirce's Theory of Signs

This paper is a commentary on some topics discussed by Thomas Short in his recent book Peirce's Theory of Signs: Peirce's distinction between iconic and indexical signs, the objects of propositions, and different ways of interpreting the distinction between the immediate and dynamic objects of signs. Peirce's distinction between immediate and dynamic objects is in certain respects analogous to Alexius Meinong's distinction between the "auxiliary objects" and the "ultimate objects" ("target objects") of mental representations. It is suggested that the models of a theory can be regarded as its immediate objects, and the real systems represented by the models are the dynamic objects of the theory.