A handbook of semiotic: Aristotle’s Hermeneutics

The works of Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322) are very loved or hated, but for the Ερμηνευτικη I think that is an exception, because it is a examination of linguistic nature, that is very easy and also scant, he says: “The first we must consider what is the name  and what is the verb, hence what is the negation, what is the affirmation, and the enunciation and the discourse”; it is very elementary description that we can understand very easily, because in conformity to the Aristotelian code, he has always write and expressed easy concepts that are daily, and this book isn’t an exception, in fact he follows: “The sounds of voice  are symbols of affirmations that are in soul, and the written signs are of the sounds that are in the voice”; and he continues through some example that are very easy and elementary: “The false and the true regard the junction and the separation. The names and the verbs resemble to a think but without junction and separation, for example the words “man” and “white”, when isn’t added something. In facts it isn’t neither false or other…”; certainly Aristotle didn’t want offense the intelligence of his readers, although we can ask to us: “Why this book he has written?”; we must also consider that the readers in today aren’t the readers of the 4^th century before Christ; hence he has simplified very much, because then these concepts can be also difficult. But if we think well about this book, Aristotle has anticipated Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914), that is the founder of semiotic; because Aristotle has given a code necessary to the interpretation, that is the first exercise of semiotic, because if somebody read, following of Aristotle, the word man and white, the interpretation of these words is nothing, because for the meaning is necessary some other word that aren’t in Aristotelian example, inasmuch they haven’t meaning; therefore the interpretation there isn’t, in conformity of the example; in fact here the interpretation is impossible, because the words are very alone two, and the semiotic instead can give an interpretation, alone when the words are much and there is a discourse. Aristotle uses a word that isn’t in common languages, because the word “capricervo” is an imaginary animal, that is a mixed between a goat and deer, and he said: “…in fact the capricervo means something, but it isn’t the false or true, if not they add something”. I have already written about the Aristotelian semiotic(Aristotelian semiotic and the Origin of semiotics) and now a confirm it, form the book about the Categories to it, is a semiotic example; and he continues: “The name is a voice that can means in conformity to use, and independently from the time, and of this word nothing is able to means if it is take alone. In fact in Callippo horse hasn’t meaning if we take it alone, instead the words beauty horse has meaning”; it is the easy example of Aristotelian semiotic, that is a handbook for the understanding the semiotic. Aristotle has given to us a code that after is became the semiotic matter, and he has given very easy examples, so that it was understanding to everybody. Anyway the principal concept that I want give to this book is the genesis of semiotic, that during the centuries nobody has considered for this new consideration of language. May then very scant has understood the valor of this book, and today the semiotic valor is certainly unknown, but it is a handbook of semiotic, if somebody want know the semiotic must read this book, because it is the fundamental method for to know the method of linguistic semiotic, because for the semiotic  more bread in meaning is Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914)-       

Alessandro Lusana