Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On pictorial “truth”

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. We are to be concerned specifically with Hospers' “truth about,” and not at all with his “truth to.” See hisMeaning and Truth in the Arts, pp. 163-65. We will presumably all agree without argument that pictures can be “true-to” all sorts of things in Hospers' sense. See his discussion, pp. 183ff.

  2. This is closely related to a question discussed by Mrs. Langer in the fourth chapter of herPhilosophy in a New Key. See below.

  3. And, of course, both may be ambiguous. The photographic “proposition” may admit of more than one interpretation—see the difficulty of interpreting aerial photographs in the military services—just as may the verbal proposition.

  4. Philosophy in a New Key, p. 55.

  5. Ibid., italics hers.

  6. See also Nagel's review,Journal of Philosophy, June 10, 1943, p. 327.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, USA

    Douglas N. Morgan

Authors
  1. Douglas N. Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morgan, D.N. On pictorial “truth”. Philos Stud 4, 17–24 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298116

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298116

Search

Navigation