Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Picture Theory: When discussing the picture theory it comes to the question, to what extent a sentence is image of a fact, a situation or a section of the world. How should the sentence parts correspond to parts of the world? Is there such a correspondence at all? - See also Relations, Map Example, Tractatus, Wittgenstein, Russell, Picture. _____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
David M. Armstrong on Picture Theory - Dictionary of Arguments
II (b) 34 Picture theory/Armstrong: There are problems with truthmakers: e.g. surface structure of "Jack is a father," ascribes a property, not a relation! But the situation that makes the sentence true, involves several relations to different people! - E.g. The man is healthy, the urine is healty, eating is healthy: here the conceptual analysis shows, what is not shown by the picture theory._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Armstrong I David M. Armstrong Meaning and Communication, The Philosophical Review 80, 1971, pp. 427-447 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1979 Armstrong II (a) David M. Armstrong Dispositions as Categorical States In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Armstrong II (b) David M. Armstrong Place’ s and Armstrong’ s Views Compared and Contrasted In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Armstrong II (c) David M. Armstrong Reply to Martin In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Armstrong II (d) David M. Armstrong Second Reply to Martin London New York 1996 Armstrong III D. Armstrong What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983 |
||
> Counter arguments against Armstrong
> Counter arguments in relation to Picture Theory
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-29