Representations of imaginary, nonexistent, or nonfigurative objects

Cognitio 7 (2):277-291 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to the logical positivists, signs (words and pictures) of imaginary beings have no referent (Goodman). The semiotic theory behind this assumption is dualistic and Cartesian: signs vs. nonsigns as well as the mental vs. the material world are in fundamental opposition. Peirce’s semiotics is based on the premise of the sign as a mediator between such opposites: signs do not refer to referents, they represent objects to a mind, but the object of a sign can be existent or nonexistent, a feeling or an idea, something merely imaginary or even something false. The paper examines the nature of imaginary, nonexistent, and nonfigurative objects, such as unicorns, phoenixes, or nonrepresentative paintings, and shows why verbal or visual representations of imaginary beings and even nonfigurative paintings, which seem to represent nothing, are fully developed signs with a variety of objects determining their representation.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-16

Downloads
693 (#36,843)

6 months
85 (#73,545)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Nonexistent objects.Maria Reicher - 2019 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Ways of worldmaking.Nelson Goodman - 1978 - Hassocks [Eng.]: Harvester Press.
Collected Papers.Charles Sanders Peirce - 1931 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Ways of Worldmaking.J. M. Moravcsik - 1978 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37 (4):483-485.
Semantic theory.Ruth M. Kempson - 1977 - New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 10 references / Add more references