4 ms·

I feel that it's the kind of argument you devise when you think language is the fundamental basis of reality rather than a (flawed) way to model it. There are m

I feel that it's the kind of argument you devise when you think language is the fundamental basis of reality rather than a (flawed) way to model it. There are many logical deductions you can make that only tell you things about language, but nothing about reality.

mistermann 3y ago
> I feel that it's the kind of argument you devise when you think language is the fundamental basis of reality rather than a (flawed) way to model it. I think it's both - unless ~everyone is secretly playing a gag and joking about everything they say (as opposed to being mostly sincere about their claims, as I believe the case to be, and I've never once encountered someone mentioning it), I can't see how it is otherwise.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Indeed, it makes sense in the philosophical mindset of the time, because they seriously really believed this, or a form of it. "In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God" It's the bread and butter of the Neo-Platonism of the time. And to the Christians of the time, Jesus Christ was the literal embodiment of the Word of God.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Isn't "logos" a term with quite a few different translations? It also seems to mean "reason", "argument" and "law". Perhaps the word "Word" has a special meaning here. "In the beginning was the Word" - what does that mean? Which word? You can ask a similar quesion about the phrase "the Word of God": did he really only ever utter a single word? Or does the phrase really refer to the entirety of Christian teaching? Is that barking street-preacher with a megaphone speaking the Word of God when he declares me to be a sinner? But the things he's saying are his words, they are not scripture. I think "In the beginning was the Word" is the most mysterious passage in the Bible. I used to think Revelation was mysterious. But Revelation is explicitly a description of a hallucination; the author doesn't claim to know what it means, or even that it means anything. The opening passage of John's gospel, on the other hand, purports to be stating unqualified facts.

mistermann 3y ago

> I feel that it's the kind of argument you devise when you think language is the fundamental basis of reality rather than a (flawed) way to model it. I think it's both - unless ~everyone is secretly playing a gag and joking about everything they say (as opposed to being mostly sincere about their claims, as I believe the case to be, and I've never once encountered someone mentioning it), I can't see how it is otherwise.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Indeed, it makes sense in the philosophical mindset of the time, because they seriously really believed this, or a form of it. "In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God" It's the bread and butter of the Neo-Platonism of the time. And to the Christians of the time, Jesus Christ was the literal embodiment of the Word of God.

denton-scratch 3y ago
Isn't "logos" a term with quite a few different translations? It also seems to mean "reason", "argument" and "law". Perhaps the word "Word" has a special meaning here. "In the beginning was the Word" - what does that mean? Which word? You can ask a similar quesion about the phrase "the Word of God": did he really only ever utter a single word? Or does the phrase really refer to the entirety of Christian teaching? Is that barking street-preacher with a megaphone speaking the Word of God when he declares me to be a sinner? But the things he's saying are his words, they are not scripture. I think "In the beginning was the Word" is the most mysterious passage in the Bible. I used to think Revelation was mysterious. But Revelation is explicitly a description of a hallucination; the author doesn't claim to know what it means, or even that it means anything. The opening passage of John's gospel, on the other hand, purports to be stating unqualified facts.