Abstract
Nelson Goodman notoriously distinguished between autographic works, whose instances should be identified by taking history of production into account, and allographic works, whose instances can be identified independently of history of production. Scholars such as Jerrold Levinson, Flint Schier, and Gregory Currie have criticized Goodman's autographic/allographic distinction arguing that all works are such that their instances should be identified by taking history of production into account. I will address this objection by exploiting David Davies' distinction between e-instances and p-instances of a work, thereby restating the autographic/allographic distinction. Then, I will show that this way of restating this distinction leads us to effective accounts of relevant related phenomena such as forgery, plagiarism, and digital technologies. Finally, I will show the theoretical advantages of my account of the autographic/allographic distinction in comparison with an alternative account recently proposed by Jason D'Cruz and P.D. Magnus.Medicine by Alexandros G. Sfakianakis,Anapafseos 5 Agios Nikolaos 72100 Crete Greece,00306932607174,00302841026182,alsfakia@gmail.com
Αναζήτηση αυτού του ιστολογίου
Πληροφορίες
Ετικέτες
Εγγραφή σε:
Σχόλια ανάρτησης (Atom)
-
Publication date: Available online 25 July 2018 Source: Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology Author(s): Marco Ballestr...
-
Editorial AJR Reviewers: Heartfelt Thanks From the Editors and Staff Thomas H. Berquist 1 Share + Affiliation: Citation: American Journal...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFOhpBjLqN4&t=1s , Η ΘΕΡΑΠΕΙΑ ΓΙΑ ΟΛΕΣ ΤΙΣ ΑΣΘΕΝΕΙΕΣ 1 Περιεχόμενα Σύντομο βιογραφικό Πρόλογος μεταφραστ...
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.