4 ms·
they're arguing that symbols are not arbitrary, which is true but I think they inferred that you were making that argument as opposed to the softer "symbols are
by beaconstudios 5y ago
they're arguing that symbols are not arbitrary, which is true but I think they inferred that you were making that argument as opposed to the softer "symbols are conventional" one that you did make. Convention does not necessarily imply arbitrariness.
If symbols were arbitrary then maybe a rabbit could symbolise ferocity, but they are instead more like metaphors that need to tie into something concrete.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hyperpape 5y agoThanks, this is really helpful. I did in fact think that the use of convention implied more arbitrariness. The convention that we drive on the right can be reversed. But I suppose there can be conventions which are partially constrained by some underlying phenomenon.