Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The Mona Lisa, as a kind, can be said to have perceptual properties in an extended sense
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Kinds, as abstract or general entities, lack the spatiotemporal particularity required to be genuine bearers of perceptual properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Attributing perceptual properties to a kind conflates the ontological category of type with that of token, committing a category error Strawson warned against in 'Individuals'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The inference from 'all instances share property P' to 'the kind has P' is invalid, as Russell's paradox of classes shows that collections need not instantiate member properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Wollheim's account in 'Art and Its Objects' establishes that perceptual properties belong exclusively to particular instances, not to the type, making 'extended' attribution explanatorily idle rather than genuinely descriptive.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
All instances of the kind (the Mona Lisa) have perceptual properties
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
When all instances of a kind share perceptual properties, it is a small conceptual courtesy to attribute those perceptual properties to the kind itself
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42