No on my view. — Terrapin Station
Yes on my view, but it's not representing something (real) that's not actualized. — Terrapin Station
It's representing gravitational attraction in that case, which is actual. — Terrapin Station
I wouldn't say that the conditional "maps" to a conditional that is actual in the world. — Terrapin Station
I don't in general buy that the non-linguistic world is structured like language. — Terrapin Station
so that cannot be what the conditional proposition is representing. — aletheist
Wait a minute--how do you figure that there are any limits on what a proposition is representing, so that we can say that a proposition isn't representing something? — Terrapin Station
Yes. Any words/text strings/sounds/drawings/whatevers could be taken by an individual to represent anything. Hence me wondering why you'd say something like, "X can't represent Y."Can we say that this proposition is representing the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States? — aletheist
Yes. Any words/text strings/sounds/drawings/whatevers could be taken by an individual to represent anything. Hence me wondering why you'd say something like, "X can't represent Y." — Terrapin Station
But that proposition as ordinarily understood can't represent that fact as ordinarily understood. — Michael
Fine, we are back to words and their combinations being symbols that represent their objects by arbitrary conventions. — aletheist
While it seems fairly clear that conventional symbols represent I don't think resemblance represents. Resemblance is symmetric, i.e. one thing resembles another by actually possessing some of its recognizable properties. Representation, however, is asymmetric, i.e. one thing represents another, regardless of whether they share properties.I am looking at HOW a particular sign represents its object. There are only three options--by resemblance (icon), by direct connection (index), or by convention (symbol). — aletheist
Any picture can represent the person, but then it is used as a symbol, regardless of its resemblance. A caricature, for instance, seldom resembles yet represents; resemblance is neither necessary nor sufficient for representation. A portrait, however, resembles, and a photographic portrait could be visually indistinguishable from the present features of the person. Granted that it could also represent the person, but if the question is: how does the picture signify, then it seems fairly clear that while a caricature represents by asymmetrically exaggerating or contorting known features of the person the portrait signifies primarily by resemblance.A portrait does not represent the person whom it portrays (resemblance)? — aletheist
It represents the direction of the wind by being used as a conventional symbol for it, regardless of its direct causal connection to the wind.A weather vane does not represent the direction of the wind (connection)? — aletheist
There is no face in the photo but colour patches, and the photographic process arranged those patches in a way that resembles the way which makes the face familiar. The photo does not represent the face, it presents certain features which are recognizable as the face.You do not recognize a familiar face in a photograph (both)? — aletheist
There is no good reason to exclusively adhere to the terminology of a 19th century theory of signs. It is fairly easy to see that representation is an asymmetric relation whereas resemblance is symmetric. That's what sets portraits apart from representational symbols, e.g. traffic signs or words.You are not adhering to the definitions that I am using, which come from Peirce and are well-established in semiotics, so we are just talking past each other. — aletheist
Granted that a portrait can both resemble and represent its object, but if resemblance is the predominant relation which determines how a portrait signifies its object, then in this respect (i.e. as in how it predominantly signifies its object) it cannot represent its object, because representation is asymmetric whereas resemblance is symmetric. The portrait may, of course, represent its object in other respects by way of convention, for instance. *In particular, you seem to have a very narrow concept of representation. If "the portrait signifies primarily by resemblance," then it represents its object by resemblance--it is an icon. — aletheist
But the question is how, recall. A tumbling dust ball is also connected to the direction of the wind, but that does not make it a representation of it, does it?The weather vane represents (i.e., indicates) the direction of the wind, regardless of whether anyone interprets it as doing so--it is an index. — aletheist
I'm also focusing on the predominant relation, but the mere application of semiotic terminology is not an argument for "HOW a particular sign represents its object".If the photo "presents certain features which are recognizable as the face," then it represents the face--iconically due to the resemblance, and indexically due to the causal process that placed the image on the film. Now, just about every sign has all three aspects--iconic, indexical, and symbolic; but I am focusing on the predominant relation of the sign to its object. — aletheist
A photograph of Ghandi signifies its object, the man, by resemblance between some of his visual features and some of the visual features of the photo. The photo may also represent the man, or what he stood for. But as a representation the photo is used as a symbol, and in order to represent the man or what he stood for we could substitute the photo with his name without changing the representation relation. From the logical difference between resemblance and representation it follows that if a portrait resembles, then it cannot represent in the same respect. — jkop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.