Dasein - Monoskop

INTRODUCTION 5
the universal medium to reject model theory and to reject all talk
of possible worlds. Since semantical relations are not accessible and
since semantical relations which are different from the actual ones
are neither expressible nor perhaps even conceivable, it is clear that
a model theory cannot be developed, for it is based precisely on the
idea of a systematical variation of semantical relations. Furthermore,
since our language is thus interpreted, and interpretable, only with
respect to one world, i.e., since our language inevitably has the one
and only actual world as its "universe of discourse", our language
cannot be used to speak meaningfully about other, merely possible
worlds. To put the same point differently, an advocate of language as
the universal medium is likely to search for a way to analyze modal
notions in a way that avoids a full-blown ontology of possible worlds.
The belief in the ineffability of semantics and in the inconceivability
of different semantical relations will also push a defender
of language as the universal medium towards linguistic relativism
and semantical Kantianism. Linguistic relativism might appear
inevitable to universalists because—due to the ineffability of
semantics—they have no way of comparing with each other the semantical
relations of different languages to the world. Semantical
Kantianism might seem inescapable because of the close conceptual
link between not knowing the mechanisms and activities used by
our faculty of knowledge and not knowing the things-in-themselves.
That is to say, we must, according to the view in question, also accept
the ineffability of things considered independently of the (possible)
distorting influence of our language because we cannot reach a full
knowledge of the relation between language and reality. 10
Furthermore, a believer in language as the universal medium
will also be strongly tempted to reject metalanguage and to distrust
the idea of truth as correspondence. To the defender of this view,
the development of a metalanguage presupposes that one can station
oneself outside of one's home language. Since there is no way of stepping
beyond this language, there cannot be a metalanguage, either.
Furthermore, since language is tied to the world, speaking about
language by means of language is a misuse of language. Precisely
because we cannot step outside of our language, truth as correspondence
must also be regarded as a highly questionable notion, for, ac-