Suppose an ant traces a line in the sand which just happens to

>>9483346

You just said it did. This is the dumbest riddle.

File: S_qRy8zs.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>9483346

>>9483352
It's a popular philosophical thought experiment most famous for its application by Hilary (male) Putnam. Or so I thought...

File: 06b79c67bf08e04692139c418d5e7483.jpg (75KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x500px

>>9483356
>Hilary (male) Putnam

>>9483433 (Checked)

>>9483346
>Suppose an ant traces a line in the sand which just happens to look exactly like a caricature of Winston Churchill. Has the ant traced a picture which depicts (or represents) Winston Churchill?
Better question: what does the search for the answer of this question reveal to us, exactly?
Meaningless debates over the semantics of terminology in one school of thought or another is the death knell of philosophy

>>9483469
It's the same as "tree falls in forest, noone hears it, does it make a sound"

two possible answers
Yes, vibrations are produced in the air
No, those vibrations do not impact an ear, therefore they are not heard, therefore there is no sound

The different answers come from different ideas of what "sound" constitutes

In this example the different answers come from different ideas of what "picture" constitutes.

Is it a picture if no-one sees it?

File: 1432134825383.jpg (474KB, 1619x1725px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1619x1725px

>>9483346
That depends, is the aforementioned ant a piece of shit rei-fag?

>>9483346
No, of course not. Nor is a Winston Churchill shaped cloud a depiction of Winston Churchill.

File: nestunepepe.jpg (7KB, 269x187px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 269x187px

>>9483505
what if someone takes a photograph of a cloud shaped exactly like winston churchill
is the photograph a depiction of winston churchill?

>>9483524
>DUUDE IT LOOKS JUST LIKE HIM BRO.
Lol, no.

>>9483536
>namefagging
i bet you're from canada

>>9483536
Taking the strictest definition of "shaped exactly like" in the sentence, the cloud literally would be winston churchill

u r wrong

>as the ant traced a picture which depicts (or represents) Winston Churchill?
Only if it was intended. Otherwise it's just a random interaction, not representation

>>9483524
Yes, because the object doesn't then be the cloud, it becomes the subject of the photograph, which is a craft to show the representations of ideas etc.

It is a depiction of Winston Churchill once it is in a photograph, but not before.

If we can imagine that there is a performance under the cloud, then the performer, upon pointing at the cloud and saying "look this is winston churchill" it is then a depiction. The depiction is in the act of depicing, ergo and therefore the cloud acts as omni-supersitience.

>>9483565
>If we can imagine that there is a performance under the cloud, then the performer, upon pointing at the cloud and saying "look this is winston churchill" it is then a depiction
Then isn't what the ants do a depiction of him simply because OP mentioned it as such?

>>9483469
philosophy went from making up shit to explain things they didn't have the technology to explain to debate at long about things that could be cleared up if you just defined what you are arguing about. in short, it was never a worthwhile way to pass time.

>>9483580
In a very loose way, yes. But in the way we would usually conceive of it, no.

If it was a deliberate act of communicating an idea, which it would be in this case, then yes. Because what's there in the sand is depicted to be Winston Churchill.

But I suppose, the OP has really depicted a potential depiction of Winston rather than depicted Winston himself.

>>9483480
>having shit taste

>wut is authorial intent.

File: url.jpg (39KB, 651x386px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 651x386px

is the use of Christian mythological imagery in Evangelion worth examining when the creators admitted it was because it 'looked cool'?

File: 1493749877365.png (477KB, 517x437px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 517x437px

>>9483480