Abstract. There are at least two traditional conceptions of numerical degree of similarity. According to the first, the degree of dissimilarity between two particulars is their distance apart in a metric space. According to the second, the degree of similarity between two particulars is a function of the number of (sparse) properties they have in common and not in common. This paper argues that these two conceptions are logically independent, but philosophically inconsonant.Keywords: similarity, resemblance, properties, distance, metric spaces. 1.There are at least two traditional conceptions of numerical degree of similarity. According to the first conception, the degree of similarity between particulars is a function of their number of (sparse) properties in common and not in common. This conception has its home in debates over the metaphysics of properties (see especially Armstrong, 1978b, 97-98, Oliver, 1996, 52 and Rodriguez-Pereyra, 2002, but is also found in the debate over the resemblance theory of pictorial representation (Blumson, 2014, 179-198).According to the second, the degree of dissimilarity between particulars is their distance apart in a metric space. This conception has its home in

This book has had a long gestation, and I have needed a lot of help, so there are a lot of people to thank. Much of the philosophy of language and mind I draw on in these pages I learnt as an undergraduate at the University of Queensland. I thank especially Deborah Brown, William Grey, Dominic Hyde and Gary Malinas for everything they taught me. I also met many of my closest friends at the University of Queensland -I would especially like to thank June Mahadevan.The first version of the book was my PhD thesis at the Australian National University (ANU). I especially thank my supervisors Daniel

It’s often hypothesized that the structure of mental representation is map‐like rather than language‐like. The possibility arises as a counterexample to the argument from the best explanation of productivity and systematicity to the language of thought hypothesis—the hypothesis that mental structure is compositional and recursive. In this paper, I argue that the analogy with maps does not undermine the argument, because maps and language have the same kind of compositional and recursive structure.

This paper considers whether an analogy between distance and dissimilarity supports the thesis that degree of dissimilarity is distance in a metric space. A traditional way to justify the thesis would be to prove representation and uniqueness theorems, according to which if comparative dissimilarity meets certain qualitative conditions, then it is representable by distance in a metric space. But I will argue that those qualitative conditions which are strong enough to capture the analogy between distance and dissimilarity are not met by either actual or possible particulars.

The possibilities of depicting non‐existents, depicting non‐particulars and depictive misrepresentation are frequently cited as grounds for denying the platitude that depiction is mediated by resemblance. I first argue that these problems are really a manifestation of the more general problem of intentionality. I then show how there is a plausible solution to the general problem of intentionality which is consonant with the platitude.