What is it for an idea to resemble a thing? Resemble? Resemble… resemble… this mundane and commonplace word is suddenly foreign to me. Coming up with an adequate definition seems an impossible task. A copy. Like. Similar to. Well, that’s a start.
There is an apple (thing). There is a painting of an apple (an idea). The painting resembles the apple, but it seems to me that we cannot claim the reverse. An apple does not resemble a painting of an apple. They are indeed similar and alike, but because the painting is detached, secondary, and only created in reflection of the original object. It seems dependent on the existence of the original object. Even this idea doesn’t seem to hold water because what if a person is inspired by an apple and goes to create something that looks nothing like the apple, but has been colored, shaped, and abstracted to the point where an outside party would have no inkling as to the original inspiration of the work. Does it then still resemble the object? I am tempted to say that it resembles the object at least for the individual who created it. But if I look back at my original definitions it is neither a copy nor a likeness to the original. Therefore an abstract painting of an apple that is so distanced from the object of its inspiration as to be unrecognizable to any onlookers without some complicated and perhaps convoluted explanation by the creator it cannot be said to resemble the object. Then I would be calling the object false in its resemblance, calling the creator and the ideas of the creator false. I believe that ideas cannot be false therefore there must be something more to resemblance that stops me from denying that the abstract painting resembles the apple. The most I can come up with is that the painting (idea) resembles the apple (thing) in its essence or spirit. This holds true even if this essence is only seen by the creator, or has been greatly influence by other thoughts, ideas, images, emotions, volitions, judgments, and what have you in the creator’s mind. But my use of the apple as the thing and a painting as the idea could be closing me off to see this from a diferent light therefore I can only hope that my blog here resembles something semi-intelligible.
Descartes
The reason for the class
About Me
- Kelsey Austin Threatte
- Called a hundred names in a dozen cities. A twenty-something English teacher in the city of brotherly love born in the town that begins with Love. Returned from a year of self-discovery in the birth place of the three monoliths. Drunk on Bedouin whiskey, high on Chefchaouen mountain air.
1 comment:
I love your first paragraph, its funny! While I agree with you on most of your points, I have a few questions and comments.
I think your example of the painting of an apple is restrictive use for an idea. Since the painting is also a thing, I find that ideas contain more than just that image. Suppose you think of an apple, not only does the image of the apple come to mind but also the possibility of other types of apples, different colors, different shapes, taste and smells that doesn't come with only a painting. Might this be the essence that you are talking about? This idea of an essence has a very Aristotle point of view to it, so if you mean Aristotle's version of essence then it would make sense.
Post a Comment