Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Goodman's Languages of Art demonstrates that non-linguistic symbol systems are replete and lack the syntactic disjointeness of genuine languages.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Goodman conflates syntactic strictness with symbolic functionality; repleteness doesn't prevent genuine representation or communication.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Human languages themselves show substantial ambiguity and context-dependence, undermining the claimed categorical distinction from art systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some notation systems (musical scores, choreography) exhibit syntactic properties comparable to linguistic notation despite Goodman's analysis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Musical notation allows multiple symbols to denote identical pitches, violating syntactic disjointness required for true languages.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Pictorial systems lack discrete units with stable meanings; a line's meaning varies with context, density, and surrounding elements.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural languages require one-to-one mapping between symbols and meanings; art symbols are fundamentally ambiguous and multiply interpretable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.