Page 49 - Studio International - May 1971

of intension can be sorted out within such not only to the 'things' of the naturalistic theory, facto conceptions stand up. A historical (or
contexts. For anyone realizing this, the but also to the sentences (and statements) of the historically underwritten) notion, obviously, is
transcendentalism attached to the blithe theory, expressions of which that theory is included in any consideration of stipulations
addiction to 'object languages' sticks in the craw. partially composed. Now one's pseudo- made.
One can still keep 'naturalism' and do away with semantics is the theory of how such things are In terms of the present mechanism (and it is
it where appropriate without a lot of brought into relation with such 'expressions'. really no more) Theories of Ethics (and/or 'art
phenomenological/'culture'-mongering excess. Failure to realize the 'semantic' structure of works') is logically intensional. This does not
(This approach hints at a scheme which is `objects' has impeded everyone who has tried to entail that the 'theory of art' (or, interpretive
purposely 'anti-phenomenological' in language.) raise questions of naturalistic propriety and discourse) (which stands as `metatheoretical and
In accord with some types of semantics, priority. (One may argue that it is quite easy to metalinguistic' in relation to the so-called 'object'
`intensional objects' (etc.) are ontologically build up an adequate notion of 'non-natural or naturalistic context) in which one's Theories
footless. The point is that utility or interest objects' which is not quasi-ontological.) The of Ethics (etc.) 'talk' (and considerations, and
should not be confused with being a quasi- quasi-ontological is 'sufficient' in this context; perhaps theories) is placed, is in any way an
ontological value of a variable. The possibility that is to say that a sufficiently worked-out intensional metatheoretical language structure,
of the quasi-ontological is not just the possibility notion of the ontological amounts to the same in what would be here the sense of having one's
of the simply intelligible. Now, there are some thing. `intensions' sui generis, as values for the
heuristic considerations here, that one uses on `The object', Theories of Ethics (and that is variables. The 'art theory' (and its language is of
extensional basis, i.e. some features of, for not a 'lump of matter' object), and the the 'usual' extensional kind) is just a kind of
example, Theories of Ethics etc. perhaps have to assertions in it are eliminable here in the special stipulation of interest and might be criticized
be selected, others rejected. But criteria of sense that 'expressions for them' are. More elsewhere. Within this context a sort of
adequacy are perhaps the best grounds to hope specifically, any 'art theoretical' (or `analyticity' can be established, and hence, also,
that you know what you are doing (and this interpretative) sentence containing Theories of a notion of equivalence based on this.
latter hope may be contrary to, or get right away Ethics is, by definition 'shorthand' for a longer Whether or not one follows the earlier
from many, if not all, twentieth-century artists' sentence in which neither that word nor its suggestion and makes fundamental use of a
pictures of their activity). The point is that some equivalent (in the basic notation (rule-governed notion of equivalence, a notion of a-priority of a
people feel one just cannot get away with semiotics) of that theory) is present. The kind (in the assertions of theory) can be sorted
resolute laymanship. eliminability (i.e. the possibility of getting rid of out in terms of an extensional domain of
Now, it may be decent to talk about 'a work', `naturalism') in respect of Theories of Ethics does discourse. (This is the context of Carnapian
or 'ethical theories' (specifically) relative to a not show that the theory (i.e. the 'art theory') L-semantics.) It is something of a tautology to
theory and rules of a specified (though, of has something wrong with it. There may well be assert that Theories of Ethics may have an 'internal
course, not immutable) kind. The problem of something wrong with it, but not for that reason. structure'. In some respects what objects there
substitutivity in relation to 'a work' (which is The point is that Theories of Ethics (and other are, or may be, are contained in a definite way;
intended to be substituted by the name of a `works') is intimately bound up with the this (possible) way, 'being the structure of
work) is not easy to criticize; it would be better, `expressions'/notation of the art theory. In a Theories of Ethics (of 'art work(s)'). To assert this
so that you can 'know what you are doing', to sense, every metatheoretical (art theoretical) would be to say that (a) there might be 'atomic'
leave it out. It is theories of Theories of Ethics expression containing 'reference' (i.e. in a or 'molecular' conceptions of Theories of Ethics,
(or, at least, 'thought' in some relation to semantic sense—in terms of referential purport) or, (b) that Theories of Ethics might be 'atomic' or
Theories of Ethics—even if that is not, or can't be, is reducible to a sentence describing the way `molecular' in relation to other 'art works' if
`referential') which is of interest. And this might (the terms in which) the metatheory purports to there be any. One again stays completely clear of
be to say that the theory, allegedly 'of' theories `refer' to Theories of Ethics. No more is a phenomenological account here. But any
of ethics is indispensable in a way that would presupposed of Theories of Ethics than that it distinction (`molecular'/'atomic') would not be
be more fundamental than it would be if you (they) are no more than quasi-syntactic, or independent of the semantic mechanism.
accepted the essentialistic 'tautology' of `de nominal virtual, or `psuedo' classes. There is no One source of interest in this distinction (i.e.
corpore'. Now, given any theory, it may well be assumption that these are 'legitimate-objects'. thought of in this way) is that it would lose its
that there will be `works'—or Theories of Ethics The sentences in fact refer to the theoretical constructivist ontic character (although as a
(one need not presuppose that there is only one) `notation', or, rather, sentences of the theory. whole it would be hermeneutically accessible).
which are beyond the range of the theory. But The theory is, that of the 'object' — Theories of The 'structure' is not ontic, but it is described in
you can keep the theory going, i.e. supplement Ethics. terms of the 'art theories', 'expressions' and
it. On the other hand, it may be important to Theories of Ethics is intimately linked with a sentences.
keep it systematic and extensional in itself. notion of moral criticism. The point is that (for Theories of Ethics is concerned, importantly
In either case it is normal to presume that example), in the pseudo-definiens of a 'pseudo- (among other things) with 'particular
there is no 'richest theory' in which all Theories definition' of Theories of Ethics (or, 'art-work'), individuals' —furnishing the 'ascription' to them,
of Ethics (or works) can be accommodated. The the notion of having properties or relations or as it were, of a property or relation. (How far one
very conception of this presupposes a notion of pseudo properties or pseudo relations will occur can say that the property or relation is non datur,
all theories of ethics independent of theory in a fundamental way. (Perhaps a priori will.) such that it would begin to foul up one's
(importantly, independent of the 'expressional No matter what Theories of Ethics is, or might be, analyticity, remains to be seen.) A generality of
range') of theory. It is doubtful whether such a it is not independent of a-priority; and the art works is merely thus a congeries of (in
notion can have much in the way of 'rules' in it. notion of a-priority can be handled in a number some sense) the art works' specificities; it doesn't
However this may be, at the moment what is of ways. Presumably one way available here matter that this sounds somewhat Lockean. This
proposed is the relativization of Theories of would be a semantic notion. It might be argued does not prohibit a notion (or set of notions) of
Ethics talk to a specific theory (which is in a from an analytical point of view that one can the 'general work'. The other point is that Theories
complex way, 'art theory' and which would be avoid bringing in a semantic (hence, quasi- of Ethics (and other art works) are linked also
described all right as an 'object theory'). ontological) notion, and that a pre-analytic with a synthetic or 'observational' experience (in
Theories of Ethics (and, assertions in Theories notion will do, and one of the reasons it will do this sense they are historical 'entities').
of Ethics) are discussed only within a 'pseudo- is that it is appropriately vague (that, in a sense, Nonetheless Theories of Ethics (and other art
semantic metalanguage' (a theory). In the means methodically vague). But this is a position works) are not just 'factual'. They are (in order
analysis generated by them, there is reference which would have to make nothing more than de to keep ontic determinacy going) to be
231