How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
When I was writing this thread I was thinking about including the idea of culture rather than just language because I am aware that the many diverse aspects of experience are so important in thinking, including questions about the existence of God, and specific worldviews. I live in a house with about 10 different people, and I am the only person who was born in England. My immediate neighbours come from Pakistan, Romania, China and other cultures. So, I am aware of cultural diversity and difference, as well as gender and economic aspects which come into play in thinking about the nature of reality and aspects which appear to be unseen, possibly involving the idea of a 'God' . My own attempt to try to understand this is understanding what is communicated as aspects of the intersubjective aspects of experience, and possible transcendent reality beyond our experiences,. It is extremely complicated, and I wish to understand it as fully as possibly, not merely as an abstract realm of philosophy and metaphysics, but as part of understanding the diversity of human experience and differences which exist amongst human beings.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
I think that words are often ambiguous, especially in the cultural context, but I think that it is more so in the discussion of religion. I also believe that people probably use words differently in philosophy discussions, including those on forums from the way people do in ordinary life. I have become aware of that recently because I spend so much writing online that it has started to affect what I say in real life. I find that I start speaking about the mind and body problem, consciousness and how in ordinary everyday conversations the specific philosophy usage of terms does not make sense to others, and I have to spell out what I mean and even try to avoid too much philosophy.
I suppose that when I am thinking of what words could be questioned in this thread the most obvious is God, because I definitely think that the idea is not understood in exactly the same way by all people. In particular, I think that many people do see God as being some independent entity which has omniscient knowledge. In contrast, the idea can be seen as some kind of creative force, energy, which is imminent in nature and all aspects of existence. PoeticUniverse made reference to the idea of the supernatural, and for many a belief in the supernatural is the stumbling block for many in thinking about the possibility of there being a God. But, even the idea of the supernatural is ambiguous. For many it conjures up the idea of magic. I read a lot of Carl Jung and there are some discrepancies in his understanding, because he was trying to mix the growing knowledge of scientific thinking with religious traditions, and, of course, he was writing a long time ago. But, we could say that it is worth demystifying ideas of magic and the supernatural. This is explored by Lyall Watson in his book, 'Supernature', in which he looks at some aspects of what appear to be magic are about the emergence of patterns in nature, and our ability to tune into perception of these. In this context, it is possible to dismiss the idea of God entirely, but it is also possible that it is possible to revise what we mean by the concept of God. Of course, many don't believe in God because they see reality as being so mundane, but that is also about the nature of perception. It is possible to zoom in on the mundane or perceive the infinite in the way people like Walt Whitman and William Blake were able to. In some ways, philosophy, especially after the deconstruction of meaning and language within postmodernism, has resulted in a way of thinking which is about focusing on explanations which are entirely based on the material tangible aspects of reality, ignoring the realm of the unseen, or invisible order within apparent chaos and randomness.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
I was just having a further think about one aspect of the cultural element of thinking about God. When I worked in a various jobs in mental health care, nearly all the staff believed in God, and how it is such a contrast to the perspectives on forums, in which most people do not. It is like there are various subcultures of belief.
Also, so many of the Christian staff I worked with were born in Africa and the entire approach to life was so different..I have often thought that missionaries went over there and almost enforced certain Western perspectives, and I am surprised that has not lead to many of them becoming angry atheists, but they seem to embrace Christian culture. I found if anything they were inclined to preach, and when I was on breaks during night shifts they were reading their Bibles and they were horrified by some of the books which they saw me reading, including ones on philosophy. So, I think that the cultural aspect is about entire systems of values.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
I agree.JackDaydream wrote:I suppose that when I am thinking of what words could be questioned in this thread the most obvious is God, because I definitely think that the idea is not understood in exactly the same way by all people.
Yes, a lot of people do seem to see God as that.In particular, I think that many people do see God as being some independent entity which has omniscient knowledge.
Yes, I agree it can. One thing that those two notions of God, as well as most others, have in common is inherent in your use of the word "creative". Most ideas of God see it as something which possesses creativity, intent, purpose and will, by analogy with those things as they exist in humans.In contrast, the idea can be seen as some kind of creative force, energy, which is imminent in nature and all aspects of existence.
OK. I personally don't see the concept of the supernatural as a stumbling block for thinking about the possibility of there being a God. But obviously if we pursued this we'd have to examine in more detail what we mean by "supernatural". As you've said, it can be ambiguous.PoeticUniverse made reference to the idea of the supernatural, and for many a belief in the supernatural is the stumbling block for many in thinking about the possibility of there being a God.
I'll leave it there for now because I've leant from experience that it's best not to try address a large number of points in one reply post.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
JD!JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 14th, 2021, 6:39 am @3017Metaphysican
I was just having a further think about one aspect of the cultural element of thinking about God. When I worked in a various jobs in mental health care, nearly all the staff believed in God, and how it is such a contrast to the perspectives on forums, in which most people do not. It is like there are various subcultures of belief.
Also, so many of the Christian staff I worked with were born in Africa and the entire approach to life was so different..I have often thought that missionaries went over there and almost enforced certain Western perspectives, and I am surprised that has not lead to many of them becoming angry atheists, but they seem to embrace Christian culture. I found if anything they were inclined to preach, and when I was on breaks during night shifts they were reading their Bibles and they were horrified by some of the books which they saw me reading, including ones on philosophy. So, I think that the cultural aspect is about entire systems of values.
Yeah. It's kind of a common occurrence seeing that kind of behavior with respect to ' preaching.' Typically, for whatever reason, humans feel the need to project their Will onto other's. Specifically, the fire and brimstone newbie's (derived from right-wing fundamentalism) ego is such that they seem to want to prove something...
Religion and politics also have many things in common... . My political ideologies are simply that which I use to justify my own particular belief/value system (I'm a moderate independent). In that context, that's what I use logic for; I try not to use it to 'mandate' that other's think as I do. Sure, we can influence people in a positive way, and philosophically, we can also make sure we are asking the right questions. But I feel embracing diversity can have a liberating impact. Otherwise, I would say if someone has covered their bases, using the logic of language, go ahead and give it your best shot!
Living life is about learning.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
"Language has a tyranny on thought." This is the famous Sapir/Whorf hypothesis (Sapir was an anthropologist, Whorf a linguist.) The simplistic explanation is that since the Eskimos have 20 words for snow, they acutally perceive snow differently from those of us with more limited vocabularies.JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 13th, 2021, 7:31 pm @PoeticUniverse
I think that all the words, such as God, consciousness and the infinite are so intricate., involving aspects of material reality and possible other aspects. I am aware that you are in touch with the creative processes in life, but you do this in connection with thinking of the perspectives arising within scientific thinking. I think that this is extremely important, but I would admit that I do struggle with how to juggle science with aspects of reality, ranging from the basics of causal aspects of life alongside the more unusual, and the whole question of the what appears to be in the potential realms of the 'supernatural'.
ONe cross cultural experiment that addresses this hypothesis is the Berlin/Kaye color chip analysis. Berlin and Kaye took 200 (or so) colored chips and asked Native Speakers of languages around the world, "What color is this?" When a certain percentage of native speakers agreed, that constituted a "basic color term". Several languages had a mere 3 basic color terms, others (including English) had as many as 12. Here's the interesting part: every language that had 3 had the same 3 (light beige and dark). Same with 4, 6, 8, and 12. This might suggest that commonalities of perception have a tyranny on language, instead of the other way around.
One problem that philosophers of science have recognized in a "naturalistic" world view (the notion that science is the best way to understand reality) is that science depends on language. In particular, science depends on math (which is a language), but math is not "scientific".
(I know this is only tangential to the issues being discussed here, but I hope some people find it interesting.)
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
I like debating and discussing ideas but I have never really been a fan of preaching. I remember when I went to Christian Union as a student there being a big emphasis on trying to gain converts. I see people's choice of belief as being a process of discovery, and often it is life experiences and interpretations of it which play a critical role in changes of belief. I think that applies to politics as well. I am fairly left wing, but I don't try to impose my own ideas on others, and my only political action has been going on some protest marches. I suppose one of the biggest differences between political and religious preaching is the idea which by refusing to believe a person may go to hell, with the task being to save people from this fate.
On the subject of language, one aspect which you have mentioned in some forum discussion is that you describe yourself as a Christian existentialist. I am unsure what you mean by it because I have not interacted with anyone who has spoken in such a way. I am thinking that it is probably a form of Christian belief which draws upon ideas of Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, but I could be wrong in this interpretation.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
I think that your entry is relevant because we could query how much perception and language are connected, as in the description of colours. Some people think in the basics of colours whereas others pay more attention to the specific shades and hues in the fullest variations.
It also leads me to think about the way in which the language of translations of texts gives rise to such different meanings. In particular, I have an interest in Hinduism, but I am unable to read Sanskrit, so a lot of the subtle aspects of Eastern thinking may get lost in the process of the ideas and words being conveyed in English language. As far as Christianity is concerned, apart from differences involving the various translations, I wonder how different meanings were when ideas and masses were in Latin.
As far as scientific thinking goes, I do believe that many people don't pay attention to the way in which theories are developed within language, and even how maths is a language. It is often treated as concrete knowledge, especially how people think about statistics and evidence.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
JD!JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 14th, 2021, 10:26 am @3017Metaphysican
I like debating and discussing ideas but I have never really been a fan of preaching. I remember when I went to Christian Union as a student there being a big emphasis on trying to gain converts. I see people's choice of belief as being a process of discovery, and often it is life experiences and interpretations of it which play a critical role in changes of belief. I think that applies to politics as well. I am fairly left wing, but I don't try to impose my own ideas on others, and my only political action has been going on some protest marches. I suppose one of the biggest differences between political and religious preaching is the idea which by refusing to believe a person may go to hell, with the task being to save people from this fate.
On the subject of language, one aspect which you have mentioned in some forum discussion is that you describe yourself as a Christian existentialist. I am unsure what you mean by it because I have not interacted with anyone who has spoken in such a way. I am thinking that it is probably a form of Christian belief which draws upon ideas of Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, but I could be wrong in this interpretation.
Indeed. The whole idea of hell is more of a fundy paradigm. Those folks seem to take joy in the damnation of others. Kind of sad and somewhat extremist view wouldn't you say?
As far as Christian Existentialism goes, yes, I am one. More specifically though, when it comes to Christian apologetics I comfortably liberate myself from traditional interpretations (I.E, the misleading idea that the Bible as a so-called 'perfect book') and allow myself, among other things, to embrace mystery, contradiction, paradox and finitude. Although somewhat out of the 'mainstream', of course, Existential thought did however have much of its beginnings in the book of Ecclesiastes. And so with respect to the human condition, the ideas that were coming from that sense of finitude (the emotional struggles as documented in the OT/Wisdom Books) were considered an antecedent to salvation, wisdom and revelation (Jesus). A sense of peace and contentment became part of that new awareness. Much like early Greek philosophy (OT Wisdom books borrowed from Greek philosophy and vise versa) a new kind of thinking prevailed. Or simply put; faith, hope and love became the world view (from the NT/Christ model).
As another discussion point, I think it's important to distinguish between logic and metaphysics though. The existential thought process has more to do with the limitations of reason, much like how Kant challenged logical positivism. Existentialism just recognized, and rejoices in finitude with metaphysics being a result (one conclusion) in the study of same. Meaning, just as Kant saw that there was more to a priori and a posteriori kinds of knowledge and thinking, he also saw that the synthetic a priori was indeed something beyond pure reason, something intrinsic to consciousness. And intrinsic to the way we naturally think. Even, in a way, that thinking is to be considered quite an 'existential' feature or quality (Qualia) of our conscious existence that in-turn transcends pure reason. This sense of wonder and intuition existentially 'just is'.
And so using the logic of language then, one could once again, ask how is synthetic a priori judgements even possible, and why should 'all events must have a cause' really matter(?) Whether it's a infinite tower of turtles, a super turtle or the concept of God, the same metaphysical sense of wonder (itself) existentially, cannot be removed from our thinking process. We can't help to wonder, there is no escape. Our will to question things in itself, is something beyond pure reason. Perhaps blame it on consciousness and self-awareness
Better yet, blame it on Metaphysics!
As a footnote, perhaps ask what the world would look like without the (metaphysical) sense of wonderment. In theory, would one's quality of life be different without it (would there be any advancement)?
― Albert Einstein
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
Thanks for your reply which explores some important issues. As far as your description of Christian existentialism, it is a way of seeing which appeals to me so much more than some of the Christian/Catholic ideas which I grew up with, and I believe it is because cultural interpretations of Biblical ideas is so variable. There is the negative one of hell and damnation, and it is possible to zoom into this, and I know that I have done so at times, and apart from the language and imagery of belief, I have felt this in certain old churches, and if I do go into churches, I prefer ones which have a lot of light. I was also encouraged in religious education to focus on the New Testament, as if it replaces the Old, but this is probably far too simplistic.
On the subject of language, I do think that language is often used in connection with reason far too much. I am definitely in favour of incorporating the awareness of mystery, which draws upon imagination, emotion and intuition. Of course, your own thread on glossolalia did look at going beyond the restrictions of words to describe the highest states of awareness of mystery,
As far as philosophy is concerned, I do think that it is about trying to understand how reality works in a much deeper way. In the topic of this thread, I am certainly not wishing to reduce the deeper questions to language. However, there may be an increasing trend to focus on language and science alone. I think that it is in this picture that many people dismiss the idea of God's existence, and develop atheism. It is as if the idea of a transcendent reality does not make any sense to them at all. My own angle is that both metaphysics and language can be combined intricately to explore philosophy problems with greater clarity. I believe that there is a lot of potential fuzzy thinking and in many ways the understanding of knowledge, following on from Wittgenstein, has made raised the question of certainty. However, it has lead to an emphasis on private language rather than connection with wonder and mystery. I find the wider perspectives, such as the systems thinking of Fritjof Capra and transpersonal philosophers, including Ken Wilber, who explore the nature of higher experiences, but I think that these writers are not very popular, especially on forum discussions. I think that people often choose to exclude certain ideas but this is often done through using language to categorise and put everything into neat boxes. It is a way of simplifying, but, it can also be a way of stereotyping. I remember being a bit stunned, in my student days, when I was having a conversation with someone in class and he seemed surprised by some of my own ideas, remarkingthat, '...you go to Christian Union,' as if that in itself implies an assumption that I had one specific set of ideas. So, I am into the exploration of the philosophy of religion and the debate between atheism and theism in a way which goes beyond simple categorisation, and I think that language is a starting point for deeper discussion about the metaphysical realities of this,
- ExistenceofSelf
- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 13th, 2021, 7:48 am
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
What you express has a tremendous amount of information that is required in order to resolve the perspective. I will try to keep this short, however, this will still be a long read. I do not enjoy wasting other's time. I will make this interesting, and with perspective never heard of before.
**** Language ****
Language is a never ending concept of formulation and evolution. Language was not precisely created in human's initial existence. Even our language today is convoluted and still lacks precision.
The concept of language should be adhered to mathematics. In theory there are a certain amount of symbols that can be applied to mathematical core constants. This would create a "pure" language and opens up new opportunities that humans can not do with their current languages. Word mapping for future discoveries and concepts; or, automatic translation through only utilizing mathematics are a couple of examples. Instead of utilizing language to translate mathematics, we should be utilizing mathematics to translate into language.
Humans are always in competition with themselves and others. A human may try to stand out or miss interpret information and develop jargon as part of; "modernization," social notoriety or acceptance, domination, nurturing, structuring, meaning, purpose, and reasoning. This has convoluted human perspective in translation. Words are the translations for expression in experience. If the translation is convoluted, then the perspective experience is convoluted as well.
**** Sub-Conscious ****
The sub-conscious is more complex than humans understand. The automation shapes and affirms the conscious, and the conscious shapes and affirms the automation or what is considered the sub-conscious. Depending on the structuring of both, determines how the two build and destroy each other, as they compound back and forth in proportion to each other. This is a critical perspective for understanding "voices or hearing God."
The language in automation is built off of what conscious learned in core structuring. This is why voices or the concept of God/Gods talk to an individual within the perspective language that dominates their filter of translation. When an individual is talking to a creator or creators, they are actually talking to themselves from a scientific perspective. As for hearing voices from a schizophrenia perspective, the issues still relate to the individual. Internal ego-centrism is what produces and influences an individual's perspective hearing of "voice or voices" and how that manifests for them in experience.
**** How Humans Were Shaped By Their Instincts and Curiosity ****
Humans are becoming more complex. The biology is not naturally becoming more complex, the information itself is becoming more complex.
When isolated information is in its earlier development in domination, the information entirely nurtures themselves internally for external advantage. The nurturing of procreation is in neutral automation before procreation becomes complex or "moral." Eventually the biology becomes complex enough that the information of the individual is allowed to wander past the parameters in-which the information instinctually prompts as part of "pure" automation. This helps an individual break or move past the parameters in-which the individual was produced from and within, to produce and build upon new constructs of quantitative information for survival.
Human biology eventually became complex enough that the information started developing as a dominate reliance for; survival, self preservation, and procreation. Since the environment offered more through the ability to apply imagination for exploitation, humans looked more to their environment for survival. This also produced the symptom of humans looking for themselves within their external environment, to get perspective of their internal environment both objectively and subjectively. This was to reason with the authenticity of an individual's perspective actions and their existence in meaning.
**** The Reflection of You and Everything ****
(Struggle determines a sub-species perspective of morality.)
Everything is in reflection. Humans; create, think, build, and imagine in proportion to themselves. Isolated information that formulated in domination has a core that is of internal self interests. This is some of what contributes to God complexes or an individual expressing and looking for importance as part of affirmation in nurturing. In human history, discovery happened by looking at illusion and emplacing concepts on perspective reality.
The perpetuation of self interest perspectives kept perpetuating as being fact throughout human existence. Eventually humans started to utilize reality to affirm and change their illusion. However, there are still many illusions that affect science still to this day because of what I mentioned.
If the concept of soul had never been invented, do you think science would look at ourselves differently?
If Freud had never come up with the concept of ego-centrism and instead the concept of internal and external nurturing manifested as the concept for ego-centrism, do you think that would have changed the development and perspective of a sub-species or an individual in proportion to their science?
**** The Concept of God ****
(Gods are created in proportion to an individual's ability to imagine.) (We are all creators, who are creating, within the existence of creation.) (It is in you, to create you, in all dimension of you.) (If the creator is disqualified, then the creation will disqualify the creator.)
When others were looking for themselves outside of themselves, they found reasoning within their perspective of themselves. Humans stand on the concept of hierarchy. This is why concepts of God/Gods and creation predominately stands on a hierarchy as part of reflection, even down to the concept of gender norms. This is what contributes to God complexes. Even an individual still backwards manifests a God complex when they perspectively serve a God. It is still about God and them. Standing on the concept God itself is what produces God complexes. This is all in proportion to how an individual was and is produced.
(An individual only seeks power, for the benefit of power.)
If neither the concept of God can be proven or not proven, then why would you stand on the concept at all?
**** The Conclusion ****
Ultimately, science is telling us more and more that our existential perspective is not what we thought the concepts were supposed to be. Humans get caught up in their perspective struggle, so they seek solace and meaning in proportion to express the resolve of their perspective struggle. This is why religion and ideologies are naturally appealing.
Humans know there are two main concepts of tangibility and intangibility, "reality and illusion." Substance is reality and information is illusion. Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. Humans in their convolution created convolution in their perspective of reality and illusion. This is why most still struggle with their existence and reasoning for meaning of themselves.
I stand on three principles that help ground the conclusion of the concept God.
1.) What is true in core is true throughout everything big and small.
2.) What is true of one contrast is true of the other and vice versa.
3.) The Copy Paste Method.
Apply these principles to the projection of human development aside from any doom or Armageddon ideas that you or an individual may have. The natural conclusion of evolution states, that humans have the potential to become complex beings and "Gods." Just not in the perspective vision humans have invented the concept as and for themselves.
-Could humans ever reach or become the concept God as literal? (No)
-Could humans be seen as Gods to lesser forms of isolated information and organisms? (Yes)
-Can the first two questions be true for other life and complex isolated information? (Yes)
When undoing all the entanglement, the concept instead of God or Gods comes out to, everyone has the potential to create and become in proportion to their manifestation as potential creators.
This satisfies the concept of "God;" being everyone and everything, being outside of everyone and everything, everyone is equal in favoritism and perspective love in proportion to their manifestation of experience, resolves choice, and the ability to create without feeling restricted by a "God."
(God did not abandon us, we abandoned ourselves.)
Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
JD!JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 15th, 2021, 5:18 am @3017Metaphysican
Thanks for your reply which explores some important issues. As far as your description of Christian existentialism, it is a way of seeing which appeals to me so much more than some of the Christian/Catholic ideas which I grew up with, and I believe it is because cultural interpretations of Biblical ideas is so variable. There is the negative one of hell and damnation, and it is possible to zoom into this, and I know that I have done so at times, and apart from the language and imagery of belief, I have felt this in certain old churches, and if I do go into churches, I prefer ones which have a lot of light. I was also encouraged in religious education to focus on the New Testament, as if it replaces the Old, but this is probably far too simplistic.
On the subject of language, I do think that language is often used in connection with reason far too much. I am definitely in favour of incorporating the awareness of mystery, which draws upon imagination, emotion and intuition. Of course, your own thread on glossolalia did look at going beyond the restrictions of words to describe the highest states of awareness of mystery,
As far as philosophy is concerned, I do think that it is about trying to understand how reality works in a much deeper way. In the topic of this thread, I am certainly not wishing to reduce the deeper questions to language. However, there may be an increasing trend to focus on language and science alone. I think that it is in this picture that many people dismiss the idea of God's existence, and develop atheism. It is as if the idea of a transcendent reality does not make any sense to them at all. My own angle is that both metaphysics and language can be combined intricately to explore philosophy problems with greater clarity. I believe that there is a lot of potential fuzzy thinking and in many ways the understanding of knowledge, following on from Wittgenstein, has made raised the question of certainty. However, it has lead to an emphasis on private language rather than connection with wonder and mystery. I find the wider perspectives, such as the systems thinking of Fritjof Capra and transpersonal philosophers, including Ken Wilber, who explore the nature of higher experiences, but I think that these writers are not very popular, especially on forum discussions. I think that people often choose to exclude certain ideas but this is often done through using language to categorise and put everything into neat boxes. It is a way of simplifying, but, it can also be a way of stereotyping. I remember being a bit stunned, in my student days, when I was having a conversation with someone in class and he seemed surprised by some of my own ideas, remarkingthat, '...you go to Christian Union,' as if that in itself implies an assumption that I had one specific set of ideas. So, I am into the exploration of the philosophy of religion and the debate between atheism and theism in a way which goes beyond simple categorisation, and I think that language is a starting point for deeper discussion about the metaphysical realities of this,
Yes. And remember the definition of Metaphysics relates to the nature of reality or existence, which is another reason I like the question: what does it mean for something to 'exist'.
As a bullet point on Christian Existentialism, other than embracing things that transcend 'pure reason' (the absurdity of living life) the other point I failed to mention related to emphasis on the Jesus model and the 'golden rule'. The distinction there is that the 'existential' tenets focus more on that Jesus model/world view along with the pragmatics of the golden rule (treating others as you would like to be treated). And relative to apologetics, the existential approach is to recognize or hold a higher value those things that are intrinsic to the human condition. To be true to oneself and others in the reality of living this life.
It is not worth the intellectual energy to get into the weeds over literal interpretation's that only serve to exploit that which remains a subject of finitude. With respect to one's ego, it becomes a kind of irony, if you get what I'm saying. What I'm trying to say in a nice way is that the Fundy approach more often than not turns people off. Fundamentalism too me, is more 101 and egoist based. Generally, I've always said religion gives God a bad name. I'm not convinced Jesus (the Jesus model) cared about religion.
Anyway, feel free to poke holes there.
Back to language, when you mentioned private language, I thought of the broad philosophical notion of Subjectivity or subjective truth. Does this definition of private language summarize your understanding there(?):
The idea of a private language was made famous in philosophy by Ludwig Wittgenstein, who in §243 of his book Philosophical Investigations explained it thus: “The words of this language are to refer to what only the speaker can know — to his immediate private sensations. So another person cannot understand the language.” This is not intended to cover (easily imaginable) cases of recording one’s experiences in a personal code, for such a code, however obscure in fact, could in principle be deciphered. What Wittgenstein had in mind is a language conceived as necessarily comprehensible only to its single originator because the things which define its vocabulary are necessarily inaccessible to others.
Compare to Subjectivity:
Subjectivity in a philosophical context has to do with a lack of objective reality. Subjectivity has been given various and ambiguous definitions by differing sources as it is not often the focal point of philosophical discourse.[1] However, it is related to ideas of consciousness, agency, personhood, philosophy of mind, reality, and truth. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:
Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[2]
Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[3]
Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.[4]
The varying definitions of subjectivity are often used together and interchangeably.[1] The term is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.[4]
Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. Subjectivity and objectivity are usually seen as two directly opposing views; therefore, an understanding of one usually influences that of the other.
― Albert Einstein
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
Thanks for your reply and I think that the topic is really about the metaphysics underlying the philosophy of religion, and how language comes into play. Your discussion of subjectivity and private language is one which I have thought to be one which is rather blurry in philosophy discussions and I think that points to the way in which the discussions and formulation of concepts in language becomes so fuzzy. Also, beyond the realm of the question of subjectivity and objectivity, there is the aspect of intersubjectiviy.
A couple of weeks ago I created a thread on this site on the creativity, imagination and intersubjectiviy, but I you may not have seen it because I put it in the philosophy of arts section, but it did focus on the nature of the source of creativity, subjectivity, intersubjectiviy and any underlying objective reality, such as archetypes and the collective unconscious. On this site, I find it hard to know where to place my thread discussions because there are categories for philosophy of religion, metaphysics, science, general philosophy and the arts and, when putting them on the site it is debatable which category will generate the best possible discussion. I am inclined to like discussion which looks from the widest possible angles.
I think that the question of existence is interesting and I found Sartre's ' Being and Nothingness' a very interesting book to read several months ago. I had looked at it a few years ago and felt a bit daunted by it, and read, 'La Nausea instead. However, when I did read, 'Being and Nothingness', I did feel that it was a great work of art. Sartre was an atheist as far as I know, but he was able to wonder deeply, and some of the others, like Nietzsche, seem to have connection with the power of numinous reality.
I also believe that one of the biggest questions underlying the debate about theism and atheism is the question of what is 'absolute reality'? I may even create a thread on it, but will probably wait until early next week if I do. I believe that it is also bound up with the question of the relative and the absolute. I believe that the term relative is commonly associated with the issue of cultural relativism, but it does also connect to the bigger question about what is the absolute force or source behind everything else, which comes down to the reality which may be referred to as, 'God'.
I think that the the idea of the golden rule in connection with Jesus is interesting too, because it does also relate to the metaphysics of the idea of 'love' as a metaphysical principle. I definitely believe that the teachings of Jesus show this principle in a way which goes far beyond most of the superficial ideas within Christianity, although I am sure that people who thought in the deepest way were able to see this, and how it is about compassion, and that is the level on which I think that both Christ and the Buddha were both relating to a higher level of reality, and even though the teachings of both are from different approaches, they are interconnected in a deeper way, in terms of the the nature of ultimate reality.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
Lloyd,
I think you are new to the site and I hope you find stimulating discussion, Thank you for your detailed reply which I just discovered. I find it extremely interesting because I read a lot about psychoanalysis, including the ideas of Freud and Jung. I think that the subconscious often gets left out of debates about consciousness, and that it is an important area. So much is learned in the subconscious, and I wonder about this in relation to the ideas of Julian Jayne's, 'Origins of the Bicameral Mind.' He maintains that early human beings heard voices, and that people who are considered as schizophrenic are experiencing a throwback to an early stage of development. He argues that early human beings did not understand the division between inner and outer reality in the same way as people do presently.It is hard to know if his argument is correct but it is useful for thinking about communication with the 'divine', such as Moses receiving the commandments.
I think that it relates to the way we think about the literal and the symbolic and how people developed the concept of God. Our entire experience of knowledge is so different, especially with all the information available on the internet and education available. Human experience is becoming so complex, and I think that terms such as the soul are becoming less common. This is a complex area, and Plato spoke of the idea of the 'daimon' as the higher self which connects to a more ultimate reality. I think that human beings are in the position of having access to ancient knowledge, the metaphysics of Western philosophy, as well as science, and I believe that clarity of language is needed to put this together meaningfully, especially in understanding the symbolic.
Jack Cummins, London
-
- Posts: 310
- Joined: September 27th, 2011, 6:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Albert Einstein
- Location: Canada/China/Oz
Re: How Much Is the Question of Belief in God Related to Use of Language?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023