Dear Ron T.,

You wrote:

"I'm not sure what value these definitions have because they can be so arbitraily applied to anything. ... my question really is: what difference does it make whether something is a symbol/sign/index?"

I think that this is a good question -- a version of which comes up in almost every philosophy class I teach.  I think, also, that there is a good response.

The first thing to notice (as R.G. Collingwood argues, to my mind convincingly, in Essay on Philosophical Method) is that philosophical distinctions do not (usually) carve up the world into discrete objects, but offer a distinct perspective from which to look at a given object or entity or idea.  In other words, if the distinction between symbol/sign/ and index is a philosophical distinction, then the same thing can be a symbol, sign or index.  But it means something different to say of an image of a bloody knife that it is a phallic symbol, a sign of death, or an index of a real knife.

The thing to ask, then, is does this distinction make sense?  Is it clear what it means to say that something is a symbol of x, a sign of y and an icon of z?  If the distinction can be made clear in terms of fairly obvious instances, and if it is also clear in terms of such instances what it would mean to say that the same thing is a symbol of something, a sign of something else, and an icon of a third thing, then we are working with a good and clear distinction.

Then the question is, when dealing with tougher cases, just whether a case can be made for applying one of these terms to a particular object.  Of course anyone can CLAIM that for any object that it is a symbol of Y or an icon of Z, but can they give good and convincing reasons why it ought to be taken as such? (They could point, for example, to the consistent usage of X in similar contexts throughout the film or throughout films of the same genre, or throughout films of the same "auteur's" work, etc.  They could argue that taking something as a symbol of Y helps to clarify other things that would otherwise seem confusing or superfluous, etc.  Part of making the case for calling something a symbol of Y is to show that it helps with our making sense of the film as a whole to suppose it is.)

Any such set of reasons can be disputed, but not refuted unless claims to the contrary are also accompanied by convincing reasons, that (1) exhibit an understanding of the meaning of the terms, (2) address public facts about the film AND (3) address the apparently convincing reasons that were given by the first person.  The point here is that any claim about a film is subject to debate, but the debate has to operate on the basis of a shared understanding of the terms of debate (hence the need for clarity of distinctions -- and of course the distinctions themselves could be subject to debate on the same basis).  And once a group of thinkers are working with a more or less well understood set of distinctions there can be better or worse reasons given for applying them in a particular way to any given case.

This may sound as though it is all relative, if by this is meant that the argument could in principle never stop.  But in practice there really are better and worse arguments, and usually reasonable people will cease to insist on things when they've seen a better argument.  Of course, sometimes there are equally compelling arguments for contrary views -- but usually these aren't contradictory views, just views that reveal different things about a film from differing perspectives.  If there were genuine cases of contradictions, it would be reasonable for a critic to withhold judgement -- or to assume that the contradiction is "deliberate" and holds a key to some "deeper" meaning of the film.  I have to say, I find nothing about this process that is viciously problematic.

Yours in discourse,

Nate

--
Nathan Andersen, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Director, International Cinema at Eckerd College
Collegium of Letters
Eckerd College
4200 54th Ave. S.             Phone: (727) 864-7551
St. Petersburg, FL 33712      Fax:   (727) 864-8354
U.S.A.                        E-mail: [log in to unmask]

*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**