Quid est Veritas?
In Memoriam to CS Lewis
1. No
2. Have you ever heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jacques Derrida?
Let me explain. If we use the English language we speak of the sun coming up, high noon and sunset. Implicitly by saying this we are using the underlying idiom of English which assumes a geocentric world. Does this mean I believe the world to be so?
If I examine the question, reason and empiric observation will tell me the world is a spheroid, since we can travel around it, sunrays hit at oblique angles in a hole and outside it, we first see the uppermost part of a tall object etc.
By thinking thus, I am applying a different thought paradigm, that of Empiricism or Scientific Method. Does this invalidate the idiom of the English language? No, for if I talked of earthturn or such, that would be incorrect English and not be understood anyway.
So both concepts are held, with one in use when I converse, but when I stop to examine the question, I would opt for the other. This does not mean either is 'wrong' for if I am working from a viewpoint of Scientific Method heliocentrism would be, but it would be wrong in English and vice versa. This is where Wittgenstein steps in. For a simplistic way to see what he said is 'Meaning is Use'. So by using geocentrism in English it is correct and fully so in that instance, for the meaning of words are indistinguishable from the way they are used. The same holds when speaking Scientifically.
A good way to explain it is with a portrait. A description of a portrait is never a part of it, only the portrait itself is. I can say the portrait shows a sun shining on a field, but my sentence would never replace nor become a part of the portrait, which holds its own underlying values. Its existence is independant of my description thereof.
Likewise if I apply a Scientific description to the English term 'Sunrise', it changes nothing to the meaning, use or truth of the term. It is inherently just a description thereof, a separate and additional truth construct, which changes nothing to the inherent meaning when someone speaks of a 'Sunrise' even if both parties are cognizant of the fact that the sun does not in fact rise.
Now lets deconstruct the Biblical passages in turn. What we find is a similar underlying idiom of the firmament etc. as held by most Semitic peoples. This then functions in a similar manner to sunset or sunrise in normal English conversation.
It is correct to speak thus in context, but it does not mean that it would be correct to use it in all instances, similar to how it would be incorrect to retroactively import scientific terminology into older texts.
So I fully accept the wording of the Biblical texts and all the implications that go along with it, yet I do not feel this means that I must jetisson the Scientific explanation either. In essence, both can be held concurrently provided you understand the context you are working in, like an English speaker implicitly understands the language's Idiom.
2. Have you ever heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jacques Derrida?
Let me explain. If we use the English language we speak of the sun coming up, high noon and sunset. Implicitly by saying this we are using the underlying idiom of English which assumes a geocentric world. Does this mean I believe the world to be so?
If I examine the question, reason and empiric observation will tell me the world is a spheroid, since we can travel around it, sunrays hit at oblique angles in a hole and outside it, we first see the uppermost part of a tall object etc.
By thinking thus, I am applying a different thought paradigm, that of Empiricism or Scientific Method. Does this invalidate the idiom of the English language? No, for if I talked of earthturn or such, that would be incorrect English and not be understood anyway.
So both concepts are held, with one in use when I converse, but when I stop to examine the question, I would opt for the other. This does not mean either is 'wrong' for if I am working from a viewpoint of Scientific Method heliocentrism would be, but it would be wrong in English and vice versa. This is where Wittgenstein steps in. For a simplistic way to see what he said is 'Meaning is Use'. So by using geocentrism in English it is correct and fully so in that instance, for the meaning of words are indistinguishable from the way they are used. The same holds when speaking Scientifically.
A good way to explain it is with a portrait. A description of a portrait is never a part of it, only the portrait itself is. I can say the portrait shows a sun shining on a field, but my sentence would never replace nor become a part of the portrait, which holds its own underlying values. Its existence is independant of my description thereof.
Likewise if I apply a Scientific description to the English term 'Sunrise', it changes nothing to the meaning, use or truth of the term. It is inherently just a description thereof, a separate and additional truth construct, which changes nothing to the inherent meaning when someone speaks of a 'Sunrise' even if both parties are cognizant of the fact that the sun does not in fact rise.
Now lets deconstruct the Biblical passages in turn. What we find is a similar underlying idiom of the firmament etc. as held by most Semitic peoples. This then functions in a similar manner to sunset or sunrise in normal English conversation.
It is correct to speak thus in context, but it does not mean that it would be correct to use it in all instances, similar to how it would be incorrect to retroactively import scientific terminology into older texts.
So I fully accept the wording of the Biblical texts and all the implications that go along with it, yet I do not feel this means that I must jetisson the Scientific explanation either. In essence, both can be held concurrently provided you understand the context you are working in, like an English speaker implicitly understands the language's Idiom.
Upvote
0
