Repositorio Dspace

What does a presentist see when she looks at photographs of dead relatives?

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor Universidade Federal de Goiás, Faculdade de Filosofia, FAPEG (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás), CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) es-ES
dc.creator da Silva, Guilherme Ghisoni
dc.date 2018-12-13
dc.date.accessioned 2023-03-16T15:02:27Z
dc.date.available 2023-03-16T15:02:27Z
dc.identifier https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/LAOCOONTE/article/view/12330
dc.identifier 10.7203/laocoonte.0.5.12330
dc.identifier.uri https://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/handle/CLACSO/185875
dc.description The objective of this paper is to bring to the foreground some metaphysical commitments present in the debate about the relation between photography and the past. I will try to answer the question: what does a presentist see when she looks at photographs of dead relatives? According to presentism, if a particular object does not exist in the present, it does not exist simpliciter. For this reason, in Priorian presentism, there can be no de re (singular) propositions about past particulars. Part of the requirement for singularity would be played by reality, which suffers metaphysical restrictions from the passage of time. After outlining the metaphysical and semantical debate about presentism, I will briefly explore some theories of photography and separate them in two groups: de re theories that accept that through photography we indirectly perceive the past object itself and de dicto theories that deny it. Then, I will connect those theories to the problem faced by presentism, showing that a presentist must limit herself, in the case of objects that no longer presently exist, to a de dicto approach of photography. In other words, a presentist cannot accept that through photography she can indirectly see the past object itself. There would be nothing in the past for her to be remotely acquainted with or to demonstratively single out. I attempt to develop a presentist theory that could account for the descriptive and causal referential elements of photography using John Zeimbekis’ theory coupled with Craig Bourne’s presentist causal theory of reference (that jettison the Millian element of the causal theory). I will show how this theory is different from Kendall Walton’s counterfactual theory (also accepted by Dominic Lopes) and explore a criticism that could be formulated from his perspective. es-ES
dc.format application/pdf
dc.language spa
dc.publisher SEyTA. Sociedad Española de Estética y Teoría de las Artes es-ES
dc.relation https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/LAOCOONTE/article/view/12330/12498
dc.relation https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/LAOCOONTE/article/downloadSuppFile/12330/5782
dc.rights Copyright (c) 2018 Laocoonte. Revista de Estética y Teoría de las Artes es-ES
dc.source Laocoonte. Revista de Estética y Teoría de las Artes; Núm. 5 (2018): Número 5; 97-116 es-ES
dc.source 2386-8449
dc.subject philosophy of time; philosophy of photography; philosophy of language es-ES
dc.subject metaphysics of time; tense operators; quantification; particulars; de re/de dicto es-ES
dc.subject metaphysics of time, singular thought; photography es-ES
dc.title What does a presentist see when she looks at photographs of dead relatives? es-ES
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type es-ES


Ficheros en el ítem

Ficheros Tamaño Formato Ver

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Buscar en DSpace


Búsqueda avanzada

Listar

Mi cuenta