 |
 |
On 10/30/10 8:34 AM, bill harris wrote: > =20 > I likewise do not believe that it's useful to define something as 'objectiv= > e' simply because we understand the physics of how it works. What might be = > said is that because photograpy can be understood as resting on principles = > of science=2C it has=2C by definition=2C a subject-independent basis. The basic notion is information-conveyment in Dretske's sense: our interests determine the design of an altimeter or fuel guage but the information just is. That is a usual use of objectivity: a moral realist, at least of some sorts, for example, believes that moral properties are objective in the sense of being part of the furniture of the world. I think the supposed realism of photos is overblown: we often get carried away by recognition so that we don't know how weird they look. j * * Film-Philosophy 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] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **