Ludwig Wittgenstein once believed that language's function was to name
objects and the meaning of language was found in the objects for which
it stands. He later rejected this and centred on how language works
and is used, believing that problems of religious language come from
misunderstanding its usage. Wittgenstein was no longer concerned with
the truth or falsity of language but the way it is used and the
functions that it performs, as he said 'Don't ask for the meaning ask
for the use.'
Wittgenstein recognised that language is equivocal as words have many
different meanings, such as the word 'pen' whose meaning changes in
different contexts.
He saw language as a game, which like all games had its own set of
rules. Different contexts or 'forms of life' are like different
language games with their own self contained rules. Those not involved
in a particular language game effectively become 'non-players' and so
the language holds no meaning for them, however, this does not give
the non-believer the right to dismiss religious language as
meaningless.
Wittgenstein used the example of 'soul' to illustrate the problems of
trying to use words in the wrong language 'game'. He felt that the
problems stemming from the word 'soul' are caused because people try
to see it as a physical object. Such problems would disappear if
people realised that the 'physical object game' didn't apply in this
case.
It was argued that language is a social product, therefore individuals
could not have their own private language as one could not be certain
that language was being used correctly. Wittgenstein therefore
rejected Descartes ...
... middle of paper ...
...
Religious believers are also involved in other language games because
they are involved in other aspects of life. This means that religious
language is not totally isolated and there will be some common ground
with other 'language games'. This may suggest that the non-believer
may be able to understand religious language and decide if it holds
any meaning for them. It is also argued that if anything,
non-believers may be able to understand religious language better than
a believer, as they can be more objective about it.
It seems that Wittgenstein was mistaken as seeing religious language
only being intelligible in the context of religious belief. Many
religious statements entail a truth which is not dependent upon
context, but statements such as 'Jesus died to bring salvation' are
though of as true for everyone.
“Religion Gives Meaning to Life” outlines how life is given meaning through theistic religion in Louis Pojman’s opinion. In this short reading, autonomy is described as in the meaning of freedom or self-governing and argues how it is necessary for ideal existence. By being honest and faithful with ourselves shows how we can increase our autonomy. “I think most of us would be willing to give up a few autonotoms for an enormous increase in happiness” (553) shows our willingness to practice good purpose.
How does language impact each character from our readings, and what is the significance? A common theme within our various texts this semester was that of the importance of language. Not only is language a basis of verbal and written communication, but a deeper symbolic aspect of one’s own true identity. This piece will discuss include the significance of language to each character, what it personally means to them, as well as the conflicts they face with their specific means of communication.
Language can be seen as not only a sign of knowledge and scholarship, but a sign of close or open-mindedness. Language is associated with imperialism (especially in this novel, and especially relating to the United States). Readers often find that stories about other cultures view the English language as overbearing and unyielding. (English speakers feel that other cultures should learn their language).
The narration of the story has two distinctly different dialects, English and Gaelic. This distinction provides the reader with an understanding of language being an essential aspect and way of interaction in our daily lives. Language is a way to inform people around us of our feelings, thoughts, desires, questions and understanding of the world around us. Communicating effectively by words, tone of voice and gestures betters ourselves and relationships.
The questions itself is about language: the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way. Something so inherent to all of us yet so foreign. Recently Louis C. K.’s monologue on “Saturday Night Live” shocked the media. It was reported on
An example of this was when Zvi wanders off to a pond where he spots a topless women and when he goes back to his wife, he is unable to communicate to her and tell her the truth asking for forgiveness due to his fear. So this fear results in him lying to her which causes him to become full of regret (Krauss 69). These gestures are described to be natural and said that the gestures of language are the same as the gestures of life. When the Argentine doctor is on his deathbed, he finally understands the gestures after studying them for years (Krauss 73). This relates to how Leo is at loss for words when he is older, but when he was younger he was always able to find words for everything. It’s the same concept. When you’re at a closer natural age or state, you are able to communicate in more natural ways due to how these gestures and languages are natural concepts to human beings. The story continues to describe the concept of how we still understand language and gestures but we have grown distant from them as we have altered farther and farther away from our natural state as human
On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy gives us insight to the philosophical views of a certain sect of Islam, and how it influenced it 's followers to view the world around them. Although it is helpful, this is written from a very biased position and it cannot be said that the views of the author are the views of Muslim culture as a whole. There is a constant attack on another religious group throughout the article that helps us to understand what this specific sect deems right and wrong through comparison of the groups.
Lang Lang, in particular, tried to show off his skill, as if going faster and faster to test his limit without falling apart. He is not so much trying to make a point about his interpretation but rather is extending his
David Émile Durkheim’s projections in regards to religion was essentially that as society expanded, the need for people to attend organized religion would diminish and become something less societal and more individual. This forecast could not be further from the truth as today, religion in general has grown substantially, with an emphasis on the Muslim religion. The increase in the numbers of people of all ethnicities as practicing Muslims has driven the religion into developing into the second largest religious conviction worldwide. The Muslim religious principle remains one that emphasizes societal unity as a whole and harmony of how their people worship collectively, producing greater relationships from within. According to Durkheim it was the need of the individual to connect with others that created the need for organized religion. However, according to the Muslim faith it is the unity of worship that makes that bond stronger. The organization of the five pillars of the Muslim religion strengthens the vows and oaths contained in the Koran and Sunnah, that each Muslim is required to humble his/herself to completely, did not weaken the need for organized religion as Durkheim had predicted in his studies
brown bread and a glass of red wine. The Bible tells us how Jesus gave
The book “The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion”, written by Mircea Eliade, investigates four aspects of the sacred universe: space, time, nature, and self. Eliade splits each aspect into two forms of perception, the sacred and profane. Religious men, specifically the ancient, traditional men, view the universe as sacred. In other words, they acknowledge a distinct qualitative difference between a sacred and profane (non-sacred) universe; whereas, nonreligious, specifically modern men, are unable to understand such differences in the world. This claim rests on the on the concept of heirophanies or manifestations of the sacred. A hierophany is the religious man’s source of absolute reality and it illuminates the glory and power of God. This manifestation of divine glory charges a site with special significance, thereby losing a sense of homogeneity throughout the universe. Eliade’s underlying thesis is that due to the human experience of both the sacred and profane in day to day life, the transitional zones between the two are exceptionally illuminated and charged with the divine glory of the sacred.
It’s commonplace for people to feel like they are right and other people that disagree with them are wrong. People rationalize all of their thoughts and beliefs in a couple of ways. More often than not, people hang around with those whom share similar beliefs and values as they do. That is, grouping for the sake of not being around any evidence that contradicts shared beliefs. Also, people create an “otherness” to the people that believe differently than they do. This often leads to demonizing groups and creates an undue hate for people that just don’t understand. Each religious denomination/sect believes they are the truth when it comes to understanding religiosity and faith. Man is inherently prone to “other-hatred.” But not always, not everywhere, not against everyone who is different. Some filter must be brought forth which isolates and clearly identifies the “otherness” which will elicit the emotional flux. Otherness is the trigger that brings forth the human characteristic of prejudice. It is a very subjective thing. It might be racial, it might be political, it might be cultural, and it might be religious. But it has to be something. Religion, regrettably, is a very efficient catalyst, a very efficient trigger. Because so much of it is based on very deep emotionalism, differences, which to an outside observer might seem superficial, are, in fact, quite profound to the believers. Religion, therefore, becomes much more problematic than secularism when dealing with world politics. Westernization and modernity have been key players in the creation of otherness amongst nations. Through the spheres of influence, Western societies have tried to push their beliefs on other societies. Ultimately, what it comes down to is Judeo-Chris...
Religion can be defined as a system of beliefs and worships which includes a code of ethics and a philosophy of life. Well over 90% of the world 's population adheres to some form of religion. The problem is that there are so many different religions. What is the right religion? What is true religion? The two most common ingredients in religions are rules and rituals. Some religions are essentially nothing more than a list of rules, dos and don 'ts, which a person must observe in order to be considered a faithful adherent of that religion, and thereby, right with the God of that religion. Two examples of rules-based religions are Islam and Judaism. Islam has its five pillars that must be observed.
These examples have shown different ways in which our language can shape who we are and how we perceive the world. There may be arguments against what I am trying to convey, but in my personal opinion I feel that language is apart of who we are; our identities. Our language alone cannot define who we are, but along with other internal and external factors language is associated with defining us and our perception of the world.
Secondly, it is that language in entertwined with the structure of the relationship between the Individual and Other, meaning that language is integral to any relation between consciousnesses. Ones language is