@fast,
fast;138945 wrote:I really don't like your use of the word, "representation," but if you insist on using it, I might concede that it's a representation of what Scooby Doo would be if there was a Scooby Doo,
Yet you have no problem with the word "depict". A depiction is a representation of what is depicted.
In any case, I don't mind using your preferred word "depict". But please bear in mind that I am using it in its standard sense of being a representation of something.
If I imagine a creature or thing that does not exist, I can depict that imagined creature with words or a drawing. I can describe it to an artist and based on that description (a depiction in words), she can draw a picture of it. She could then ask me, 'Is this an accurate drawing? Is this what you imagine this creature to be?" And I could let her know whether or not it was what I had imagined.
I don't quite understand why you should find this troubling.
Quote:
but as it stands, Scooby Doo (the actual dog) does not exist, and the only thing that I can think of that can be representative of nothing would be things like drawings of circles with nothing in it. A pluff of the Scooby Doo character might can be said to represent the Scooby Doo character, but I don't see how a pluff of the Scooby Doo character can represent Scooby Doo (the dog).
I'm not familiar with the word "pluff". And the dictionary results don't seem to fit into the context. I would be interested in learning what you mean by it.
Why would you think that the depiction of an imaginary creature would be a depiction of nothing? The artist who depicted my imaginary creature (which does not exist) did not make a depiction of nothing. She made a depiction of what I had imagined.
Quote:
The real underlying issue is the failure to understand why it's false to say that Scooby Doo is a cartoon character when much of the world would say it's true. To see this, let's make a cartoon character based on you, and let's call it Ahab. All of a sudden Ahab is a cartoon character? I don't think so. There is Ahab (which in this case does exist), and there is the cartoon character Ahab [not to be confused with the cartoon character, Ahab (notice the comma) --which implies that Ahab is a cartoon character].
I don't understand your quibbling over the use of a comma in this case.
'The senator, Ted Kennedy' and 'The senator Ted Kennedy' both refer to the same senator we call Ted Kennedy.
And 'the cartoon character Ahab ' and 'the cartonn character, Ahab" both refer to the cartoon character we call Ahab. The cartoonist decided to call that character Ahab because he is basing the character on me. He could have called him "John" or "Tom".
The character Ahab can be said to depict me in the sense that it is based on me. But it most likely is not going to be an accurate depiction of me or of my life.
I am in agreement with you that the cartoon character, Ahab, and the real Ahab, me, are not the same. A depiction should not be confused with what it is depicting.
Quote:
Some people will have no clue that the cartoon character is based on you, and like most people, they'll start talking in shorthand and start referring to the cartoon character Ahab as Ahab and say things like Ahab is a cartoon character. I know what they mean. They are simply talking in shorthand and using the term, "Ahab" to refer to what they are talking about (which is the cartoon character Ahab). But, both you and I know that Ahab is not a cartoon character.
It is irrelevant whether or not they know that the cartoon character is based on me. Even if they know, they are still going to call it Ahab and they are going to call me Ahab. A name can be applied to an infinite number of people or things. Even to imaginary people.
Quote:
Now, let's say that Ahab was actually a product of the imagination. Ahab (in this instance) would be imaginary, but it would not therefore be a cartoon character. Next, let's say a cartoon character is created (based in part from what is imagined) and made apart of an elaborate cartoon that features the cartoon character Ahab (not to be confused, of course, with Ahab). All of a sudden, because of the creation of the story line which includes the character and its fictional traits, the fictional character Ahab now exists, which is not of course to say that Ahab exists. Remember, Ahab is not real, as there is no walking talking Ahab.
I am in complete agreement with you that simply because we create an imaginary creature and call him Ahab that it would not therefore be a cartoon character. The cartoon character Ahab is only created if we decide to go ahead and depict him in a cartoon. And as you clarified for me in an earlier post, we could also qualify that character as a fictional character in order to indicate that it is a depiction of an imaginary person called Ahab.
I also agree that a cartoon character could be based in part on what was imagined. But I would add that the character could aslo be based simply on what was imagined. As in my example above, the cartoonist creating the character could make an accurate depction of this imaginary person.
Quote:
So, basically, you don't exist. So, I'm with Fido and also think I've had enough of this thread.
You are, of course, free to continue posting in this thread or not posting. I simply wanted to try and clarify my position.
---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 12:05 PM ----------
fast;138961 wrote:
Rudolph has no properties. The number three does.
How does somebody make a depction of Rudolph unless they know the properties of Rudolph?
How can someboy make a calculation using 3 unless they know its properties?
Our language is a norm of representation. We cannot represent things without attributing properties to them. But we have the ability to represent things that we all agree don't exist.
I am in agreement with you that it is correct to say that numbers exist. But I don't think we mean the same thing by that assertion.