2.1513 On this view the picturing relation that makes it a picture also belongs to the picture.
Black (p. 85) prefers ‘picturing relation’ here to P&McG’s ‘pictorial relationship. (
Cf. my comment on 2.13. Anscombe rejects
And yet, in light of what Wittgenstein says next, mustn't the picturing relation belong to both the picture and its relation to what it pictures? Not everything is a picture, so some kind of property or properties must be had in order for something to be a picture, we might think. But then not every picture is a picture of this, so something else would seem to be needed to make a given picture a picture of some given thing or things. If, on the other hand, correlating a picture with something else is something that we do, then couldn't the same be true of the seemingly essential properties of a picture? Couldn't anything be a picture? So perhaps what I've quoted Anscombe as saying here is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment