Abstract

This paper shows that goodman's influential theory of the work of art's identity suffers from what for him is a serious omission, the lack of a nominalistic formulation of his definitions of the works of the various arts. i examine the possible nominalistic translations of goodman's platonistic definitions and show that they would either be unsuitable to goodman's views or unacceptable "simpliciter". among the possibilities considered are type-individuals, superindividuals, and multiply-referential labels