Tuesday, August 05, 2014
A Question
The question that has always interested me is not merely whether God exists and has a determinate contour apart from human awareness, perception, conception and language, but whether or not it is ultimately meaningful to make such a claim. Simply put, what would the truth conditions be of the claim that God exists and has a definite contour apart from awareness, perception, conception and language? That God exists and has a definite contour apart from awareness, perception, conception and language? But what is this? "Not words," you say, "but the reality of that existence and contour apart from awareness, perception, conception and language. . ." But what is that?
When thinking about truth conditions one wants to think about entities, properties, and relations apart from words. But how precisely do we think of such things? How do we think of that which makes true divine existence and contour apart from human awareness, perception, conception and language? What is it precisely that makes true this and does not make true a divine existence and contour that is, but is not apart from human awareness, perception, conception and language?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a truly interesting question to ponder. Beyond this question is another. There is nothing truly worth saying about a divine existance and contour that is not apart from human awareness, perception, conception and language. this is mearly the imagined god made in our own image. However, Any thing we might say about divine existence and contour apart from human awareness, perception, conception and language, must itself be grounded in human awareness, perception, conception and language. So how can anyone actually say anything about divine existence and contour apart from human awareness, perception, conception and language? Only if and how that divine existance reveals itself to human awareness, perception, conception and language.
ReplyDeleteYou speak to the general problem that has been with us since the Enlightenment. Is there an external world and are there other minds? If so, what do our minds represent truly of it? And if our minds represent truly, what does true representation consist? Sometimes people overlook the similarity between the problematics of representing the physical world rightly and representing the divine rightly. How is it exactly that the mind can penetrate to the nature of the physical and not to divinity? What appears settled soon becomes muddled when reflecting upon this. Clearly the physical reality we experience is not the physical reality we claim to exist. How exactly is the problem of the ontological status of the Higgs particle different from the ontological status of God? Both are highly theoretical entities. My hunch is that unless we want to be deeply anti-realist with respect to the physical, we have little ground to be anti-realist with respect to the divine. The question of realism and anti-realism is related to truth-conditions, but all statements could be false of the divine and one still be a theological realist. Good discussion!
ReplyDelete