Topics Language

Question Given the difficulty (or perhaps impossibility) of reaching a solid and uncontested 'definition' of art, can it be talked about? More generally, must we know what a thing 'is' in order to talk about it, and if so how do we go about finding out what it is?

Accepted:
January 17, 2006

Comments

Can it be talked about? Well, we do, so it can. If we could talk only of that for which we possessed definitions, there'd be precious little talking. But you raise a puzzling question: What must we know about an object in order to talk about it? You might think you'd need to know some characterizing property of that object, i.e., some property that only that object possessed. But is that so? It seems I can talk about Pliny -- but I couldn't really give you some property that only he possessed. I barely know anything about Pliny and the little that I do know doesn't distinguish him from many people. So, how can I talk about him? These questions are at the center of Saul Kripke's famous lectures, Naming and Necessity. You might also find this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be of interest.

Question Given the difficulty (or perhaps impossibility) of reaching a solid and uncontested 'definition' of art, can it be talked about? More generally, must we know what a thing 'is' in order to talk about it, and if so how do we go about finding out what it is? Accepted:January 17, 2006

Question Given the difficulty (or perhaps impossibility) of reaching a solid and uncontested 'definition' of art, can it be talked about? More generally, must we know what a thing 'is' in order to talk about it, and if so how do we go about finding out what it is?

Accepted:
January 17, 2006