Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Goodman's lack of a theory of pictorial reference is not ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Goodman's lack of a theory of pictorial reference is not an oversight but a deliberate limitation of scope.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Goodman is interested in the 'routes' of reference—how symbols denote, exemplify, or refer in complex and indirect ways.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman is not interested in the origins or 'roots' of reference—how certain marks became correlated with certain kinds of items in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A theory of symbol systems cannot be complete without explaining why some marks function as pictures rather than descriptions, which requires grounding reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman's own density and repleteness criteria for pictorial schemes presuppose facts about which features carry meaning, facts that a purely structural account cannot supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a genetic account of pictorial reference, Goodman cannot distinguish conventional from natural pictorial systems, leaving his relativism unmotivated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wollheim's objection that Goodman's account cannot explain why seeing-in is the relevant psychological mechanism for pictures shows the limitation is theoretically costly, not merely a scope restriction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A deliberate limitation of scope must be principled, but Goodman's routes-not-roots distinction arbitrarily excludes causal-historical factors that Kripke and Putnam showed are constitutive of reference generally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    A deliberate limitation of scope must be principled, but Goodman's routes-not-ro...A theory of symbol systems cannot be complete without explaining why some marks ...Goodman is interested in the 'routes' of reference—how symbols denote, exemplify...Goodman is not interested in the origins or 'roots' of reference—how certain mar...
    +3 moreShow less
    Goodman's own density and repleteness criteria for pictorial schemes presuppose ...Without a genetic account of pictorial reference, Goodman cannot distinguish con...Wollheim's objection that Goodman's account cannot explain why seeing-in is the ...

    Similar

    Goodman's theory of depiction has a significant gap in not explaining ...81%Goodman's account of depiction fails to explain pictorial meaning for ...76%Any theory that grounds pictorial content in artist intentions is subj...76%Goodman provides no account of why certain pictures denote particular ...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: goodman-aesthetics
    View source passageHide passage
    Hence, Goodman appears to analyze pictorial representation as an ambiguous concept, ambiguous, that is, between a denotational sense (“is a picture of a so-and-so”) and a non-denotational sense (“is a so-and-so-picture”). This may be seen as a disadvantage vis-à-vis “perceptual” theories of depiction such as those proposed, for instance, by Richard Wollheim (1987) and Kendall Walton (1990) (cf. Robinson 2000). Yet concerns on Goodman’s treating the concept of depiction as ambiguous are misplaced
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit