Citations of:
Add citations
You must login to add citations.
|
|
I present and discuss recent work in analytic philosophy of religion on apophaticism and divine ineffability. I focus on three questions: how can we call God ineffable without contradicting ourselves? How can we refer to an ineffable God? What is the point of talking about an ineffable God? |
|
¿Por qué el místico pretende hablar sobre aquello de lo cual, según él mismo, no se puede hablar? Se analiza el lenguaje místico en términos pragmáticos, para mostrar cómo busca expresar lo que no se puede caracterizar, lo que supone distinguir entre decir como caracterizar y decir como dar expresión. Esta diferencia es posible, según Chien-Hsin Ho, por la operación de indicar lo inefable mediante la superimposición con negación, y porque la indicación no apunta a lo trascendente, sino a lo (...) |
|
A number of contemporary philosophers think that the unqualified statement “X is unspeakable” faces the danger of self-referential absurdity: if this statement is true, it must simultaneously be false, given that X is speakable by the predicate word “unspeakable.” This predicament is in this chapter formulated as an argument that I term the “ineffability paradox.” After examining the Buddhist semantic theory of apoha (exclusion) and an apoha solution to the issue, I resort to a few Chinese Buddhist and Hindu philosophical (...) |
|
We shall examine some conceptual tensions in Hick’s ‘pluralism’ in the light of S. Radhakrishnan’s reformulation of classical Advaita. Hick himself often quoted Radhakrishnan’s translations from the Hindu scriptures in support of his own claims about divine ineffability, transformative experience and religious pluralism. However, while Hick developed these themes partly through an adaptation of Kantian epistemology, Radhakrishnan derived them ultimately from Śaṁkara, and these two distinctive points of origin lead to somewhat different types of reconstruction of the diversity of world (...) |