Sorry, Michael, but I say there are some serious oversights in your analysis
of predication.
(Preface: 'Is' is used in many ways. The four main ones are:
"Predication": "The canary IS yellow." "Stalin WAS evil." "That painting IS
awful." "That burial ground IS holy." "Smith's escape was miraculous." I.e.
ascribing a characteristic or quality to an object.
"Categorization": "That painting IS a work of art." "Schwarzkopf WAS a
soldier." "Barry Bonds IS a cheat." "Meryl Streep IS a star." "This metal IS
gold."
"Smith's escape WAS a miracle."
"Asserting identity": "The President IS the commander-in-chief." "The morning
star IS the evening star." "Venus IS the morning star." "Oswald WAS JFK's
assassin."
"Asserting existence": "God EXISTS." "Quarks EXIST." "Miracles EXIST." "Germs
EXIST." "Ontic categories and essences EXIST.")
Michael, when you say: "In most statements when the speaker says, "XXX is
YYY" (e.g., "That is art"), such a statement is exactly equivalent to "That
thing
exhibits characteristics that are called 'art,'"" I don't know how correct
your 'most' is, but the very point is that often they are not equivalent. You
yourself have (occasionally) been excellent in distinguishing honorifics --
mere
"Hurray!" words -- from earnest attempts to assert actual predication or
categorization. Consider:
"He may CALL that art, but it damn well ISN'T!"
"He may CALL Hokusai a great artist, but he WAS only an illustrator."
"Okay, I can see why you call Kirk Gibson's home run 'miraculous', but I
assume you don't mean it was actually supernatural because it WASN'T."
You continue:
"'Painting by Jones is art' conforms exactly with
'Painting by Jones shows qualities previously
identified (or defined) as artistic."
Again those are two different things: If by "identified as artistic" you
mean "discovered TO BE artistic", the suppressed premise is that the "quality"
-- "artistic" -- EXISTS, which is exactly what I deny. And I take the position
that someone who makes a positive assertion of that kind -- e.g. that
something exists -- has the burden of proof, not the guy who says "prove it". I
think
you'd agree with this if the asserted "quality" were "miraculous", or "holy",
or "inherently lucky", or "destiny", or. . .
Also: in this context a "definition" is mere stipulation, a statement about
how you are going to use a word. "I define as art/holy/lucky any object that. .
." But stipulation is not creation. "I define as art any painting that
forwards the revolution" is onticly vacuous. At base, it's as hollow as saying
"Any
work that forwards the revolution forwards the revolution."
Predications can be interestingly complex, as are our notions of "category"
-- but more about that in a subsequent posting.
**************
Psssst...Have you
heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and
hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
