Nelson Goodman

This paper reports (in section 1 “Introduction”) some quotes from Nelson Goodman which clarify that, contrary to a common misunderstanding, Goodman always denied that “grue” requires temporal information and “green” does not require temporal information; and, more in general, that Goodman always denied that grue-like predicates require additional information compared to what green-like predicates require. One of the quotations is the following, taken from the first page of the Foreword to chapter 8 “Induction” of the Goodman’s book “Problems and Projects”: (...) “Nevertheless, we may by now confidently conclude that no general distinction between projectible and non- projectible predicates can be drawn on syntactic or even on semantic grounds. Attempts to distinguish projectible predicates as purely qualitative, or non-projectible ones as time-dependent, for example, have plainly failed”. Barker and Achinstein in their famous paper of 1960 tried to demonstrate that the grue-speaker (named Mr. Grue in their paper) needs temporal information to be able to determine whether an object is grue, but Goodman replied (in “Positionality and Pictures”, contained in his book “Problems and Projects”, chapter 8, section 6b) that they failed to prove that Mr. Grue needs temporal information to determine whether an object is grue. According to Goodman, since the predicates “blue” and “green” are interdefinable with the predicates “grue” and “bleen”, “if we can tell which objects are blue and which objects are green, we can tell which ones are grue and which ones are bleen” [pages 12-13 of “Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences”]. But this paper points out that an example of interdefinability is also that one about the predicate “gruet”, which is a predicate that applies to an object if the object either is green and examined before time t, or is non-green and not examined before time t. The three predicates “green”, “gruet”, “examined before time t” are interdefinable: and even though the predicates “green” and “examined before time t” are interdefinable, being able to tell if an object is green does not imply being able to tell if an object is examined before time t (the interdefinability among three elements is a type of interdefinability present, for example, also among the logical connectives). Thus, it is wrong the Goodman’s thesis according to which if it is possible to determine without having temporal information whether the predicate “green” has to be applied to an object, then it is also possible to determine without having temporal information whether a predicate interdefinable with “green” has to be applied to an object. Another example of interdefinability is that one about a decidable predicate PD, which is interdefinable with an undecidable predicate PU: therefore even though we can tell whether an object is PD and whether an object is non-PD, we cannot tell whether an object is PU (since PU is an undecidable predicate) and whether an object is non-PU. Although the predicates PD and PU are interdefinable, the possibility to determine whether an object is PD does not imply the possibility to determine whether an object is PU (since PU is an undecidable predicate). Similarly, although the predicates “green” and “grue” are interdefinable, the possibility to determine whether an object is “green” even in absence of temporal information does not imply the possibility to determine whether an object is “grue” even in absence of temporal information. These and other examples about “grue” and “bleen” point out that even in case two predicates are interdefinable, the possibility to apply a predicate P does not imply the possibility to apply a predicate interdefinable with P. And that the possibility to apply the predicate “green” without having temporal information does not imply the possibility to apply the predicate “grue” without having temporal information. Furthermore, knowing that an object is both green and grue implies temporal information: in fact, we know by definition that a grue object can only be: 1) either green (in case the object is examined before time t); 2) or blue (in case the object is not examined before time t). Thus, knowing that an object is both grue and green, we know that we are faced with case 1, the case of a grue object that is green and examined before time t. Then the paper points out why the Goodman-Kripke paradox is a paradox about meaning that cannot have repercussions on induction. Finally the paper points out why Hume’s problem is a problem different from Goodman’s paradox and requires a specific treatment. -/- . (shrink)

In an unpublished speech from 1991, David Lewis told his audience that he counted ‘the metaphysician Carnap ’ amongst his historical ancestors. Here I provide a novel interpretation of the Aufbau that allows us to make sense of Lewis’s claim. Drawing upon Lewis’s correspondence, I argue it was the Carnap of the Aufbau whom Lewis read as a metaphysician, because Carnap’s appeal to the notion of founded relations in the Aufbau echoes Lewis’s own appeal to the metaphysics of natural properties. (...) I further maintain that Lewis was right to read Carnap this way and that the notion of a founded relation has a legitimate claim to be both logical and metaphysical. I also argue that Carnap’s initial response to Goodman’s puzzle about ‘grue’ relies upon a metaphysics of simple properties which also prefigures Lewis’s own response to Goodman invoking natural properties. (shrink)

Modernism is a mental and intellectual approach by modern human; a mind that became a new change facing life crisis and manifested the various aspects of life using art medium. Modern period started a fundamental change; therefore, the artist converted the art meaning by its stream of consciousness. The author, poet and painter of the modern period embodied the self-concept of surrounding issues using an innovative thought. Achieving differences made the dynamic mind of the modern artist to research in order (...) to create a world free of any representation after its subjective powers. On the other hand, art pundits appeared with new attitudes and express their iconoclastic opinions on representation avoidance concepts in modern art. Gilles Deleuze and Nelson Goodman are 20th century philosophers, who cohered a special paradigm on this period by presenting useful concept. The writer believes that recognition and perception of modern artistic works get a new concept considering opinions of these two great theoretician. Modern literary and visual works, abandoning the former representation tradition, changed to a form of anti-representational and modeling based on the concepts submitted by the mentioned philosophers provided a range of new thoughts. Focusing on painting and literature as two artistic eras, this research tries to renovate a different aspect of representation, by connecting them together. What is to be questioned is, on what concepts was the representation concept in the worldview of artists and theoretician in the modern period based and how it was affected? (shrink)

Paul Goodman, 1960’larda modern Amerikan toplumunun organize sistemi içerisinde dönemin gençliğinin sorunlarını ön plana çıkaran ‘Growing Up Absurd: Problems of Youth in the Organized System’ (Saçmayı Büyütmek: Organize Sistemde Gençliğin Problemleri, 1960) eseri ile sosyal bir eleştirmen olarak ön plana çıkmıştır. Amerikalı bir düşünür olan Paul Goodman’ın kısa öyküler, romanlar, şiirler ve makalelerden oluşan çalışmaları, siyaset, sosyal teori, eğitim, kentsel tasarım, edebi eleştiri, hatta psikoterapi gibi geniş bir yelpazeye dağılmıştır. Onun temel argümanı (1960: 9-10) tek bir merkez etrafında örgütlenen teknoloji (...) toplumunun başarısızlıklarını eleştirerek, mevcut düzenin insanın doğasına uygun bir biçimde yeniden inşasını vurgulamaktadır. Goodman’ın yeniden inşa süreci içerisinde insan doğasına önem veren faaliyete dayalı anarşist ideolojisi, sorumluluk duygusunun homojen bir şekilde bireyler arasında paylaşılması gerektiğini vurgular. Goodman merkeziyetçi olmayan siyaset anlayışı ile kendisini Amerikan siyasetinin ve kültürünün karşısında yer alan bir pozisyonda konumlandırmaktadır (Honeywell, 2011: 1). Diğer bir deyişle Goodman (1960: 36), anarşist geleneği formüle etmek amacıyla yirminci yüzyıl Amerikası’nın içinde bulunmuş olduğu mevcut durumdan yola çıkarak eleştirilerini ademi merkeziyetçilik, katılımcı demokrasi, özerk toplum temaları üzerine temellendirmiştir. -/- Goodman’a göre, sosyal, kültürel, ahlâk ve eğitim gibi alanlarda uygulanan kurallar günümüz devletlerini etkisi altına alan kapitalist düzen tarafından belirlenmektedir (Bakır, 2016: 110). Bu durum Goodman’ın da içerisinde bulunduğu anarşist düşünürler tarafından kabul edilebilecek bir husus değildir, çünkü anarşistler mevcut düzenin ve sosyal yaşamın otorite ve itaat yapılarıyla güçlendirilen belirli yaklaşımlar ile kontrol altına alınmasını, insanların fikirlerini özgürce ifade edemeyeceği, bir nevi entelektüel bir hapishane içerisinde yaşaması anlamına geleceğinden dolayı karşı çıkmaktadırlar (Sheean, 2003: 122). Aynı nedenlerden dolayı Goodman, modern liberalizm ve Marksizm gibi alternatif radikal ideolojileri yerinden yönetim düşüncesi ve sosyal mühendislik konusundaki eğilimleri dolayısıyla reddetmektedir. Goodman için anarşizm, özgürlük ve toplumsal değişime yeterli düzeyde arka çıkabilecek tek ideolojik çerçeve olarak görülmektedir. Ona göre (2010: 143), “anarşizm ya da daha iyisi, anarko-pasifizm (toplumsal değişim hareketleri içerisinde örgütlü şiddete ve kurumlara karşı çıkan anarşist anlayış) günümüzün gelişmiş toplumlarının bürokrasilerini, karar verme konusunda aşırı merkezîleşmelerini ve sosyal mühendislik gibi problematik durumlarını ve tehlikelerini tutarlı bir şekilde öngörmüştür”. -/- Siyaset, sosyoloji ve felsefe gibi çeşitli alanlar içerisinde etkili olan anarşist kuramlar, radikal bir söylem olarak eğitimcileri ve araştırmacıları yeni öğretilere ve uygulamalara teşvik etme konusunda itici bir güç oluşturabilmektedirler. Anarşist yaklaşımlardan eğitim kuramı ve araştırmalara yönelik daha belirleyici bir rol alması beklenmektedir, ancak bu yaklaşımlar mevcut radikal akademik görüşü büyük ölçüde etkisi altına alan Marksizm’in eğitim alanında göstermiş olduğu aynı etkiyi gösterememiştir. Anarşist düşünceleri eğitim alanı içerisinde daha etkili ve görünür kılabilmek amacıyla Paul Goodman, Francisco Ferrer ve Alexander Neill’ın ileri sürmüş olduğu çeşitli düşünceler, girişimler ve uygulamalar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu doğrultuda Goodman’ın anarşizme ilişkin düşünceleri ile bu çalışma sıkı bir anarşizm tahlili, eleştirisi ve felsefesinden öte anarşist anlayışın eğitimdeki uygulanabilirliğine yönelik bir soruşturma içerisine girmekte ve anarşist yaklaşımın mevcut eğitim sistemlerinden hangi yönleriyle farklılaştığını, sonucunda etkili bir eğitim anlayışı ortaya koyup koyamadığını tartışmaktadır. (shrink)

Carnap and Goodman developed methods of conceptual re-engineering known respectively as explication and reflective equilibrium. These methods aim at advancing theories by developing concepts that are simultaneously guided by pre-existing concepts and intended to replace these concepts. This paper shows that Carnap’s and Goodman’s methods are historically closely related, analyses their structural interconnections, and argues that there is great systematic potential in interpreting them as aspects of one method, which ultimately must be conceived as a component of theory development. The (...) main results are: an adequate method of conceptual re-engineering must focus not on individual concepts but on systems of concepts and theories; the linear structure of Carnapian explication must be replaced by a process of mutual adjustments as described by Goodman; Carnap’s condition of similarity can be analysed into two components, one securing a relation to the specific extensions of the pre-existing concepts, one regulating the transition to the new system of concepts; these two criteria of adequacy can be built into Goodman’s account of reflective equilibrium to ensure that the resulting concepts promote theoretical virtues while being sufficiently similar to the concepts we started out with. (shrink)

In Fact, Fiction and Forecast, Nelson Goodman claims that the problem of justifying induction is not something over and above the problem of describing valid induction. Such claim, besides suggesting his commitment to the collapse of the distinction between the context of description and the context of justification, seems to open the possibility that the new riddle of induction could be addressed empirically. Discoveries about psychological preferences for projecting certain classes of objects could function as a criterion for determining which (...) predicates are after all projectible. In this paper, I argue that Goodman's claim must be construed within his project for constructional definitions, which is methodologically oriented by reflective equilibrium. The description of inductive practice is committed to the articulation of the extension of the class selected by the predicate ‘valid induction’. The mutual adjustment between theoretical considerations and inductive practice involved in the proposal of a definition of ‘valid induction’ must preserve that practice as much as possible, there is no way to get rid of entrenchment. Empirical discoveries about the psychological mechanism that underlies projections may help that adjustment but they cannot substitute the role played by the entrenchment of predicates. (shrink)

Review of Bredo Johnsen's "Righting Epistemology: Hume's Revolution" (OUP, 2017).

In this article, I explore the relationship between dance and the work of Nelson Goodman, which is found primarily in his early book, Languages of Art. Drawing upon the book’s first main thread, I examine Goodman’s example of a dance gesture as a symbol that exemplifies itself. I argue that self-exemplifying dance gestures are unique in that they are often independent and internally motivated, or “meta-self-exemplifying.” Drawing upon the book’s second main thread, I retrace Goodman’s analysis of dance’s relationship to (...) both notation in general and also Labanotation in particular. My argument is that dance gives the false impression of being notational, or is “meta-notational.”. (shrink)

Collin Howson (2000) challenges van Cleve’s reliabilist defense of induction (1984) based on an adaptation of Goodman Paradox (or new riddle of induction). I will try to show that Howson’s argument does not succeed once it is self-defeating. Nevertheless, I point out another way which Howson could have employed the new riddle to undermine the reliabilist defense.

Architekturkritiker und -historiker verwenden eine Vielzahl von Ausdrücken, um anzugeben, was Bauwerke bedeuten. Es ist beispielsweise die Rede davon, dass sie etwas ausdrücken, repräsentieren, zitieren, manifestieren, darstellen oder aussagen; man kann von Gebäuden lesen, die mehrdeutig sind, als Metaphern fungieren oder auf etwas anspielen. In diesem Aufsatz frage ich, wie Bauwerke bedeuten können, um die Grundzüge einer Theorie der Bedeutungsweisen von Bauwerken und ihren Teilen vorzustellen, die als Rahmen für Einzelanalysen und historische Untersuchungen verwendet werden kann. Anstatt die meist unklaren (...) und oft einander widersprechenden Verwendungsweisen der erwähnten Ausdrücke in der Architekturtheorie vergleichend zu analysieren, präsentiere ich zumindest für einige von ihnen Vorschläge, sie für theoretische Zwecke durch technische Termini zu ersetzen, die in den relevanten Anwendungsfällen anstelle der fraglichen Ausdrücke verwendet werden können. Die Vorschläge beruhen auf der allgemeinen Symboltheorie, die Nelson Goodman in Sprachen der Kunst entwickelt hat, und interpretieren die Bedeutungsweisen von Bauwerken damit als Symbolisierungsweisen. (shrink)

Nelson Goodman's acceptance and critique of certain methods and tenets of positivism, his defence of nominalism and phenomenalism, his formulation of a new riddle of induction, his work on notational systems, and his analysis of the arts place him at the forefront of the history and development of American philosophy in the twentieth-century. However, outside of America, Goodman has been a rather neglected figure. In this first book-length introduction to his work Cohnitz and Rossberg assess Goodman's lasting contribution to philosophy (...) and show that although some of his views may be now considered unfashionable or unorthodox, there is much in Goodman's work that is of significance today. The book begins with the "grue"-paradox, which exemplifies Goodman's way of dealing with philosophical problems. After this, the unifying features of Goodman's philosophy are presented - his constructivism, conventionalism and relativism - followed by an discussion of his central work, The Structure of Appearance and its significance in the analytic tradition. The following chapters present the technical apparatus that underlies his philosophy, his mereology and semiotics, which provides the background for discussion of Goodman's aesthetics. The final chapter examines in greater depth the presuppositions underlying his philosophy. (shrink)

Extant literature on Goodman’s ‘New Riddle of Induction’ deals mainly with two versions. I consider both of them, starting from the (‘epistemic’) version of Goodman’s classic of 1954. It turns out that it belongs to the realm of applications of inductive logic, and that it can be resolved by admitting only significant evidence (as I call it) for confirmations of hypotheses. Sect. 1 prepares some ground for the argument. As much of it depends on the notion of evidential significance, this (...) concept is defined and its introduction motivated. Further, I introduce and explain the distinction between support and confirmation: put in a slogan, ‘confirmation is support by significant evidence’. The second section deals with the Riddle itself. I demonstrate that, given the provisions of the first section, not ‘anything confirms anything’: significant green-evidence confirms only green-hypotheses (and no grue-hypotheses), and significant grue-evidence confirms only grue-hypotheses (and no green-hypotheses), whichever terms we use for expressing these evidences or hypotheses. The third section rounds off my treatment. First I show that Frank Jackson’s use of his counterfactual condition is unsuccessful. Further, I argue that no unwanted consequences result, if one starts from the other, ‘objective’, definition of ‘grue’, as it constitutes no more than a mere fact of logic that cannot do any harm. Finally, I present a grue-case involving both kinds of definition, where the exclusive confirmation of either the green- or the grue-hypothesis is shown. (shrink)

In der Architekturtheorie ist häufig von der Identität von Bauwerken oder Städten die Rede. Der Ausdruck „Identität“ bezieht sich dabei auf etwas, was man „spezifischen Charakter“ nennen könnte. Wir schlagen eine symboltheoretische Explikation dieses Identitätsbegriffs vor und zeigen, in welchem Sinn ein Bauwerk verschiedene, sich verändernde oder gar konfligierende Identitäten haben kann. Identitäten von Bauwerken werden oft als mehr oder weniger klar, positiv, angemessen oder stark bewertet. Solche Attribute diskutieren wir, indem wir epistemische, materielle und strukturelle Bewertungen von Identitäten unterscheiden. (...) Abschliessend weisen wir Wechselwirkungen zwischen Identitäten von Bauwerken und Identitäten (im Sinn des Selbstverständnisses) von Personen und Gesellschaften hin. (shrink)

Goodman sustentou que o ajuste mútuo entre inferências indutivas particulares e princípios indutivos constitui a única justificação necessária para ambos. Porém, a sua caracterização desse ajuste, posteriormente denominado de “equilíbrio reflexivo”, foi superficial. Isso levantou dúvida sobre a sua adequação. Neste artigo, argumento que o equilíbrio reflexivo, corretamente caracterizado, fornece a única justificação necessária e a melhor que podemos dar para a prática indutiva.

In non-philosophical discourse, “identity” is often used when the specific character of artefacts is described or evaluated. We argue that this usage of “identity” can be explicated as referring to the symbol properties of artefacts as they are conceptualized in the symbol theory of Goodman and Elgin. This explication is backed by an analysis of various uses of “identity”. The explicandum clearly differs from the concepts of numerical identity, qualitative identity and essence, but it has a range of similarities with (...) the notion of self-concept used in psychology and practical philosophy. The proposed explication is used to analyse claims about identity-pluralism and identity-conflicts. Firstly, the explication allows us to distinguish various ways how the same artefact can have a plurality of identities. Secondly, more or less sharp conflicts within an identity or between identities of an artefact are distinguished. Thirdly, many phenomena called “identity-conflicts” are only apparently identity-conflicts and can be analysed as involving some other form of tension. (shrink)

The contribution examines Goodman’s conception of philosophy, in particular his remark that his project can be understood as a «critique of worldmaking». It is argued that, despite dealing with epistemological questions, the general theory of symbols and worldmaking does not answer them. Rather, it can be conceived as a practical conception comparable to Kant’s critique of reason or to Wittgenstein’s critique of language games, i. e. , as a philosophy of world orientation. It is claimed that Goodman himself could not (...) articulate this dimension of his position appropriately as he kept using the language of epistemology. Yet many aspects of his thinking become much clearer if they are interpreted within a non-epistemological frame. (shrink)

Nelson Goodman maintains that there is a plurality of internally consistent, equally privileged, well-made actual worlds constructed through the use of very special symbol systems—right or ultimately acceptable world versions. Using evidence from American Indian traditions, I will argue that Goodman’s criteria for ultimately acceptability are culturally biased against any non-Western world version—especially a Native version. I will then offer a culturally sensitive interpretation of Goodman’s criteria for ultimate acceptability that an American Indian world version satisfies, and so is numbered (...) among the internally consistent, equally privileged, well-made actual worlds. (shrink)

Different conceptions on reality in physics and philosophy in the 20th century have been analyzed in the article. These approaches caused the necessity to study the multitude of the worlds. The author proved that multiworld interpretation of quantum mechanics and multitude of the worlds in the Goodman'€™s conception are opposite tendencies. Everett and his followers consider the quantum world as some universal reality whereas Goodman and his supporters do not believe in universal reality.

This paper argues against definitions of depiction in terms of the syntactic and semantic properties of symbol systems. In particular, it is argued that John Kulvicki's definition of depictive symbol systems in terms of relative repleteness, semantic richness, syntactic sensitivity and transparency is susceptible to similar counterexamples as Nelson Goodman's in terms of syntactic density, semantic density and relative repleteness. The general moral drawn is that defining depiction requires attention not merely to descriptive questions about syntax and semantics, but also (...) to foundational questions about what makes it the case that depictions have the syntactic and semantic properties they do. (shrink)

In a famous critique, Goodman dismissed similarity as a slippery and both philosophically and scientifically useless notion. We revisit his critique in the light of important recent work on similarity in psychology and cognitive science. Specifically, we use Tversky’s influential set-theoretic account of similarity as well as Gärdenfors’s more recent resuscitation of the geometrical account to show that, while Goodman’s critique contained valuable insights, it does not warrant a dismissal of similarity.

Celem artykułu jest porównanie koncepcji poznania Ernsta Cassirera i Nelsona Goodmana, których łączy odrzucenie idei poznania jako odbicia rzeczywistości i przyjęcie koncepcji przekształcania. Owo przekształcanie nie jest całkowitym przeciwieństwem odbicia, lecz jego poszerzeniem w taki sposób, że poznanie oznacza zarówno twórcze wytwarzanie, jak i odtwórcze odbicie. Tym samym zniesiona zostaje tradycyjna epistemologiczna dychotomia: konstruowanie – odkrywanie. Wspólną dla obu filozofów przesłankę stanowi odrzucenie prymatu faktów i danych zmysłowych, a konsekwencją poszerzonej koncepcji poznania jest zaś dla nich irrealistyczna koncepcja reprezentacji symbolicznej. (...) W artykule omówiono najważniejsze podobieństwa i różnice w poglądach tych dwóch myślicieli. (shrink)

The starting point of this paper is the intriguing observation that Goodman has defended a phenomenalist point of view in his epistemological works and a physicalist one in aesthetics. In fact, it would certainly be more accurate to say that his focus was anti-physicalist in epistemology and anti phenomenalist in aesthetics. In any case a majority of interpreters would spontaneously have waited for a diametrically opposite choice, more consistent indeed with the positions taken by the representatives in these fields. Yet (...) Goodman’s strategy is not arbitrary, it has deep roots in the general context of the philosophy in the twentieth century and in return contributes to clarify some of its features and motivation. (shrink)

Nelson Goodman esperait qu'un jour les philosophes seraient plus connus par le champ de leurs etudes que par les positions qu'ils prennent.

When talk of philosophy of pedagogy comes up today, it is common to hear the names of Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, or Paulo Freire, but the name of Paul Goodman, who campaigned vigorously for pedagogical reform much of his life, is seldom mentioned. In spite of neglect of his work, Goodman had much to say on pedagogical practice that is rich, poignant, and relevant today. In consequence, it is unfortunate that he is seldom read and discussed today. This essay (...) is an attempt to fill in the gap in the scholarship. I begin by presenting an elaboration of Goodman's key insights. I then offer a critical analysis of those pedagogical insights. (shrink)

I argue that Goodman’s philosophy should not be characterised in opposition to the philosophy of the logical empiricists, but is more fruitfully interpreted as a continuation of their philosophical programme. In particular, understanding Goodman’s philosophy as a continuation of the ideal language tradition makes explicable how a radical ontological relativist could be such a staunch nominalist at the same time.

In the present paper, I try to defend a coherent interpretation of Goodman’s relativism by responding to the main objections of the critics. I also discuss the significance of his pluralism by relating it to the notion of construction. This will show the relevance of Goodman’s philosophy for the present days.

_The Structure of Appearance_ presents a phenomenalist system which constructs enduring visible objects out of qualia. Nevertheless Goodman does not espouse phenomenalism. Why not? In answering this question this paper explicates Goodman’s views about the nature and functions of constructional systems, the prospects of reductionism, and the character of epistemology.

Goodman’s paradox gives rise to a cluster of problems, problems that are in need of different answers. I will discuss some variants of the grue hypothesis applied to the technological context. One conclusion in this paper is that there is room for rational decisions, and that solutions to the paradoxes in technology can be found in the practical choice situation. *Received April 2008. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, SE‐581 83 Linköping, (...) Sweden; e‐mail: [email protected] (shrink)

The aim of the present paper is to provide a model-theoretic explication of Goodman's concept of extensional isomorphism. After some conceptual clarifications Goodman's concept of isomorphy turns out to be closely related to some variant of set-theoretic definability and some variants of syntactical interpretability.

This paper investigates the relation of the Calculus of Individuals presented by Henry S. Leonard and Nelson Goodman in their joint paper, and an earlier version of it, the so-called Calculus of Singular Terms, introduced by Leonard in his Ph.D. dissertation thesis Singular Terms. The latter calculus is shown to be a proper subsystem of the former. Further, Leonard’s projected extension of his system is described, and the definition of an intensional part-relation in his system is proposed. The final section (...) discusses to what extend Goodman might have contributed to the formulation of the Calculus of Individuals. (shrink)

The notion of exemplification is essential for Goodman’s theory of symbols. But Goodman’s account of exemplification has been criticized as unclear and inadequate. He points out two conditions for an object x exemplifying a label y: (C1) y denotes x and (C2) x refers to y. While (C1) is uncontroversial, (C2) raises the question of how “refers to” should be interpreted. This problem is intertwined with three further questions that consequently should be discussed together with it. Are the two necessary (...) conditions (C1) and (C2) conjointly sufficient? Do they amount to a definition of “exemplification”? Which notions of Goodman’s theory are basic, and hence undefined? In this paper, we address these questions and defend a reconstruction of the notion of exemplification that interprets “refers to” in (C2) as exemplificational reference and hence treats “exemplification” as a basic notion of Goodman’s theory. Firstly, we argue that even though the notion of exemplification is not defined, it is still sufficiently clear. This ensures its contribution to Goodman’s theory of symbols. Secondly, we show that our account is plausible as an interpretation of Goodman’s and Elgin’s writings, although it implies that some of Goodman’s theorems about self-reference have to be weakened. Thirdly, we argue that it is the only materially adequate reconstruction of Goodman’s notion of exemplification, whereas the alternative definitional accounts fail. (shrink)

By defining both depictive and linguistic representation as kinds of symbol system, Nelson Goodman attempts to undermine the platitude that, whereas linguistic representation is mediated by convention, depiction is mediated by resemblance. I argue that Goodman is right to draw a strong analogy between the two kinds of representation, but wrong to draw the counterintuitive conclusion that depiction is not mediated by resemblance.

Based on Nelson Goodman?s conception of language and of pragmatically inherited meaning, this book looks at the arts as systems of particular symbols. The author offers an approach to kalology as a metaphysical implication of symbological functioning.