Critically evaluate Wittgenstein’s language games theory as an approach to religious language. God’s transcendence means there is widespread discussion as to how any statements in regards to his existence or nature can be deemed as ‘meaningful’. Influential philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889 - 1951 was heavily involved in studies of Language and developed the idea that the purpose of philosophy was to clear up the conceptual confusions that arose through our unexamined use of language (including statements of religious significance and any religious language) and that words are a function of language, not just simply a signifying of an object. 'Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.' Wittgenstein believed, in opposition to Rene Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) that language was a social product, and that statements made about the world were basic and 'groundless' and believed that judgement through opposing 'language games' was not possible, as they are parts of different discourse.
Paper Number 2: Gaddis Chapter Six While reading Gaddis’ chapter six, he focused on how to question causation. He uses E.H. Carr’s fatal flaw as a big example for the distinction of “rational” and “accidental” causes. Gaddis also gives an alternative view on procedures of causation, and additional procedures historians need to keep in mind when narrate the reality of history. Carr explains rational causes as, “lead to fruitful generalizations and lessons can be learned from them.” While he says that accidental causes, “teach no lessons and lead to no conclusions.” Gaddis claims that Carr clearly confused himself as well as his readers about the differences between the two. Gaddis claims that not explaining clearly the distinction between rational and accidental causes is the more serious problem with Carr.
I believe the phrases “Public Opinion” and “Voice of God” are integrated into Twain’s conclusion in order to provide a hint of irony to sum up the effects of popular opinion. Twain first uses “Public Opinion” as a noun in order to display its influence on the common individual. In the previous sentence before the phrase is mentioned, Twain state that “We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking.” “It” is Public Opinion, and its influence makes man involuntarily lean towards trends in society. “Voice of God” is then used as ironic evidence that people who try to justify their supposedly “individualistic” thoughts are actually influenced by an external source (religious activists). The phrase “Some think it is the Voice of God” is crucial in that “some” is used rather than a singular noun, proving that these justifications have already been influenced by external sources, thus proving
Paige Kimble Kimble 1 Scott Honors 190 21 October 2014 Synthesis Paper A Synthesis of Grendel Two scholars, Judy Smith Murr and Reuben Sanchez wrote articles analyzing and observing the quest for truth in John Gardner's Grendel. The main character, Grendel, is the figure who searches for meaning and value in the world. Although both writers address this mission of truth, they approach it differently. The two writers critically evaluate Beowulf's victory, the relationship between Grendel and man, and the comical tone of the story. All of these components correspond and effect Grendel's hunt for truth.
Deborah Avie, 9/13/2012, Phil, 3301(Bohorquez 1st paper) Although Euthyphro attempts to justify his actions by resorting to his religious knowledge and belief of piety having to have a universal understanding to both parties, relationships between justice and pious acts. Socrates argues that these actions or not justification but instead misguided, together Euthypro and Socrates have some kind of dilemma. Socrates try to get Euthyphro to agree that piety is a part of justice. This dialogue has implication for any ethical theory, or theory of value in general, that identifies rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, which are being commanded or forbidden by a god, or gods. While attempting to explain the reasoning in Euthyhro piety is a part of justice, we first have to understand the Venn diagram of a just act, and a pious act, this method bring about
In William L. Rowe’s essay The Ontological Argument Rowe carefully details an argument that, upon first read, appears to convincingly prove that God does not exist. His argument has, however, been even more carefully torn apart and examined by some of the worlds greatest philosophers and is often criticized. In my essay I will prove that Rowe’s argument although seemingly perfect comes nowhere near disproving the existence of a God. Quote #1 “…Anselm insists that anyone who hears of God, thinks about God, or even denies the existence of God is, nevertheless, committed to the view that God exists in the understanding.” I will use this quote to support the idea of God. This quote does not prove his existence but it does prove that
Freedom and the Free Will Defense (1990) Richard Gale The following article was originally published in SOCIAL THEORY AND PRACTICE, Vol. 16, No. 3, Fall 1990. It is my purpose to explore some of the problems concerning the relation between divine creation and creaturely freedom by criticizing various versions of the Free Will Defense (FWD hereafter).1 The FWD attempts to show how it is possible for God and moral evil to co-exist by describing a possible world in which God is morally justified or exonerated for creating persons who freely go wrong. Each version of the FWD has its own story to tell of how it is possible that God be frustrated in his endeavor to create a universe containing moral good sans moral evil.
He first shows her what the actual base idea of science is which is “determined by the laws of nature”. It gives a definition for her to go off on. Albert also tells her that scientist actual knowledge on the laws is “imperfect” and “fragmentary”. This also makes her think of the possible counter argument of what he is trying to say. This backs up his answer by him giving evidence to back up his claim.
The Moral Dilemma of Religion and Politics Tanya Forbes SOC 315 August 15, 2011 The Moral Dilemma of Religion and Politics Within every culture and civilization there is a distinct and purposeful effort to define, divide, and identify one group of people from another. The methods are as old as time; as throughout history the means used to define a civilization’s identity were wrought through religion, language, culture, and governance. Understanding the events that took place which enabled America to become what it is, and discerning the religious underpinnings of our nation, we may ask if religion and politics is really a problem? What does separation of church and state really mean, and to what extent does it apply? Regardless of the argument for or against religion’s role in politics, it is clear they cannot be truly separated.
The dancers are celebrating the Earth and are willing to sacrifice everything for their beliefs. We need to be able to step back from this sense of “seeing is believing” and embrace the beauty of a more basic Truth. Before we delve into this argument any further, we need to establish some key terms. Friedrich Nietzsche, a 19th century philosopher, describes the difference between the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus. In chapter 1 of his book The Birth of