The aim of this chapter is to compare semiotics and hermeneutics from the perspective of their ability to decipher Nature. Rather than opposing hermeneutics and semiotics as “sworn enemies” (Michel Foucault) or denying their differences, we seek to connect them by introducing, with Emile Benveniste, an intermediate level: semantics. However, the field of hermeneutics is particularly interested in signs whose meaning is, to varying degrees, problematic, without ignoring signs whose meaning is spontaneously understood and which constitute an important part of ordinary everyday life. This general scheme, which is suitable for the field of artificial signs, and more particularly for discursive forms, requires significant adjustments to be applied to the field of natural signs. Devoid of intentionality, natural signs do not all have the same problematic semantic regimes as artificial signs, in particular second-degree signs (tropes, figurative meaning, etc.). Similarly, not all interpretation techniques that are valid for discourse can be applied to them. Nevertheless, not all natural signs require interpretation. When the meaning is obvious, through habit or experience, immediate understanding of natural signs is sufficient.