/lit/ - Literature

The necessary dogness?
Jesus....you're an autist

>>15829124
The one on the right IS a symbol though. It's still a representation; it's still mediated by the (symbolic) sign ("Dog").

>>15829124
Both are good boys to me!

>>15829264
But then isn't the perception of a dog a symbol too? Is the distinction between a realistic representation of something and a symbolic representation, be it a cartoon, a word (such as the word "dog")?
>>15829267
Why?

>>15829247
Where the fuck did you go wrong in life if you can't tell the difference between a photo of a thing and the subject of that photo?
get help!

>>15829281
>But then isn't the perception of a dog a symbol too?
Yes. There can't be perception without representation.
Again; both images are symbols. The distinction you're creating between the two is merely idiomatic.

>>15829295
What are you on retard? Everyone can tell the difference. But only a select few retards would dare to try to find the, and i quote: "necessary dogness". Seriously, faggot it's time to see a fucking shrink. Analytic pseudlosophy is a joke.

Both coulde symbols if used to represent, for instance, a veterinary clinic. The main difference however is that the picture on the right is a representation of a reality made through electrical means and the other is a representation using symbolic abstractions to convey meaning

>>15829124
My diary, desu

>>15829314
>The distinction you're creating between the two is merely idiomatic.
That's what I thought
Now, is there a book or a theory that sees symbolic representations as being part of the same continuum as mental representations?
>>15829402
But aren't both representations of reality? And both have some degree of abstraction - both the nature and degree of that distinction is different.
I'm thinking, for example, of sitcom acting. These are real people, flesh and blood people, but they don't act or talk like real people would off-screen, they don't talk over oneanother. They have thicker make up than other people. The teenagers are too old, the plain janes are too attractive. And the fat guys is inexplicably married to her. They stand in the same spot (because it makes the camera crews' job easier) or conveniently exit the room just in time for the other main actor to come in.
That's not "reality" - it's a set made out of titled frames, with people pretending to be these stock characters, repeating words they memorized in a script written by a bunch of humanities majors who each wish they were the next Jerry Seinfeld, but failed.
It's a representation, a raster moving image encodes in bits and bytes of "reality" in the material sense, but has no resemblance to the reality it purports to be a mimesis of.

>>15829281
>But then isn't the perception of a dog a symbol too?
Sure, you can see it that way. Even if we define "symbol" as broadly as "something that represents something else", everything we perceive is a symbol: the perception of a dog—whether it be a real one, a photo of a real one or a cartoon—is the product of both "real" sensory data, and my mental processes. What we see is not the dog itself in all of its unmitigated dogness, but the impression that necessarily involves our participation.

I think the key difference between the two dogs is that the left involves an additional layer of abstraction, and in this case has been filtered through some other person's experience. In other words: it's a "symbol of a symbol", if we go by the definition above. But then again, that's fucking stupid. We're probably better off calling the left a cartoon and the right a photo of a dog.

>>15830078
>Even if we define "symbol" as broadly as "something that represents something else"
Is thinking symbolic?
>But then again, that's fucking stupid. We're probably better off calling the left a cartoon and the right a photo of a dog.
kek, no denying that, they're just examples.

bump

>>15829124
Define "symbol" and "dogness." You are looking at two pictures that portray dogs. One is a cartoon and the other is a real photo. Until we know what your babble-words mean we can't help you more.
PS Don't bother with Continental "Philosoph(istr)y"

>>15831499
I think you're confused. You can replace the dog with any subject - a Campbell's Soup can, a human face, the Earth, a snowflake. It's an example.
The photo is a photo, it depicts something, what it depicts is not what I'm interested in, what interests me is the continuum between direct experience of something, a photo (or a sound recording, or possibly even an intaglio relief of a texture), and a symbolic representation of it - say a cartoon, a synthesizer, or a word like "dog" "face" "can of soup" etc.
What's the difference between those steps on the continuum between direct experience?

Ceci n'est pas une chien

>>15831526
Your question is unclear. The difference between the things are self evident.

>>15831526
Your question is perfectly clear, and this guy >>15831499
>>15831566
Clearly is an idiot.

>>15831578
>I-I c-can't define m-my b-babble-words!
>Y-you're the r-real idiot!
k

>>15831590
I'm none of the anons you're arguing with, but yes, you are the idiot.

>>15831709
Because I asked you to define your terms? LOL

>>15831744
You didn't ask me anything.

>>15831566
>The difference between the things are self evident.
Then you should be able to explain the difference along the continuum between mental representation, a photo or sound recording, and a cartoon or word, yes?

>>15831844
You need that shit explained to you?
What is there to say that you can't immediately see? Why do you assume these things exist along a continuum? What does the continuum measure?

>>15831744
Define "define"

Both are representations of reality insofar as they "stand" for the concept of dog.
"Dog" is a sound, a made-up word that is a part of equally arbitrary combinations of sounds that create language. "Dog", the word itself, will trigger the same mental process in your head these visual representations do: all the information that you have stored in your brain under the "dog" tag so to speak.
If someone says that you should be treated like a dog you immediately flip because you know what a dog is in relation to humans. You didn't need to see a real dog, your mind, trough its meat neurons that magically give us thought, unifies both mental pictures and verbal description and all your collective experiences to give dog the meaning it has.
Now, those two pictures immediately trigger the concept of dog in your head, that's what makes them the same in a sense; in another sense, one is a pictographic representation of the concept (the author that drawing merely put down common traits that can bring up the real thing to mind) and the other is a realistically enough depiction of it that has a higher level of "likeness" to the real thing. By seeing I would just assume it's a photo of a "real" dog, because it corresponds with what my mind detects as "real". Maybe it's a fake image generated by deep learning machines and that being in your picture doesn't exist in any part of the world, yet it looks like it does (or did) exist because the symbols that compose the entirety of that picture trigger things in my head I have been conditioned to trigger,

>>15831916
To use more words to describe the limits or bounds, causes, and effects of the image the word being defined points to.
So I would say a symbol is essentially anything used to communicate with. Their cause is the organic will to communicate and their effect is that they invoke a concept in the viewer. This is what they represent.
So by this definition your question is confused and stupid. Both images are symbols for dogs. Things that are not dogs that bring dogs to mind.
But of course you can shrink back and define symbol in an autistic way. Which is why to have a conservation with you you must define your babble or else nothing productive can occur.
You have thoroughly convinced me you're retarded by falling for the music of the spheres and lashing out when you're asked to clean up your sloppy thought in a respectful manner.

>>15832001
Ahh... now I know what to ask: where does the 'likeness' between a dog breakdown into an arbitrary semiotic pairing like sign and signifier, and a "likeness"?
>likeness
That word helps.
Obviously the word 'dog' as in the English language letters D-O-G has no "likeness" with a dog, similarly the cartoon has so little likeness as to be negligible. I think we can all agree that the association is just that, it's a learned association, not a intrinsic likeness.
Now assume for a second that the photo was not a photo of a dog - it's either a photorealistic painting that looks like a photo, or a photo of a hyperrealistic 3D printed sculpture, or like you say deep learning generates - the means doesn't matter. For the sake of argument let's imagine it was not a photo of a dog, but for all intents and purposes looked like a photo of a dog.
Is it then a 'symbol' of a dog?
If not, where does the 'likeness' between a dog breakdown into an arbitrary semiotic pairing like sign and signifier, and a "likeness"?

>>15832184
Point taken - pls no reccomends Husserl frens

>>15829124
They're both symbols. That is a representation of a dog on the right, it is not a dog.