I think it is worse than that , the Priests were responsible for the re-enactment of tradition in the Tabernacle or Temple, however it is biblical tradition to question that authority. The Prophets were always criticising Kings and High Priests (that is why many met a bloody end) and questioned the worldly “System†of politics and power. It was also always the “inspired†who rebuilt the nation after Kings and High Priests had split the nation and caused surrounding powers to imprison the ruling caste and drag the people off to Babylon.
In this connection, “sensible†politics and foreign affairs proved to be very instable, whereas the times of religious renewal were the times of rebuilding and regaining a modest prosperity. I question the “reasonable†in our modern day too, with its implications always hidden from us, despite globalisation – until we are hit back. The “sensible vectors†for the truth of that message then was the desired “Shalomâ€, which always became endangered when alliances with the larger empires against other nations compromised the spirituality and independence of that smaller nation.
The same applies today for movements which try to remain modestly independent of the “powers that be†in the world today. Just like Babylon, Rome or the British Empire, the modern Empire doesn’t like independence. The freedom given us is to be used working towards furthering the empire, just like all empires did. Dissidence is suspected to be conspiracy against the empire and the atmosphere of distrust is growing. This is, for my take, the “lower†truth.
The “higher†truth would be that life is possible in a different mode. The model of consumerism (bread and games) may keep the peace, but the widespread illnesses suggest that it isn’t healthy. There is a hunger that is not pacified, and a thirst that is not quenched. If it is not met, people become irrational and psychotic. This seems to present my senses with enough evidence that well-being and complacency are not the same thing, and there is growing evidence that spiritual practice does actually balance people and help them regain health. The only thing that speaks against it is Mammon.
Therefore, biblical truth isn’t “before time” but up to date and noteworthy.
Okay, Bob, so it’s before time but not before time. It was your image, so I went with it.
The prophets were speaking for the one true God, which those nasty priests were disobeying. But that’s politics for you. One priest is replaced by another. A dirty business, but someone had to do it. I’m sure the stakes were high enough to make it all worthwhile.
But sensible politics is not the issue, for me. Truth is. Statements are. There is not much in geopolitical statements that I would take seriously. My view is essentially apolitical.
Now see, the idea of ‘verification’ sounds like some later step in a process to me. The way I look at it, we get raw data from our senses, which in itself doesn’t betray any meaning at all- and we rely on reason (or at times, creativity) to put a meaning on it. When I attribute meaning to a sentence, it’s not because what I saw, those squiggles on the screen, mean anything- it’s because I understand what people like myself use them for, right?
The speaker has no intention regarding me- it is my knowledge of that that makes me not react the way I would if someone in person said “I’m going to kill you!”
I can’t answer this, because “as meaningful as” doesn’t mean anything to me yet. “Kill someone today” means something. “Thou shalt not kill” means something. I don’t see how to think of meaning as a matter of degree.
Well, we might have to, depending on the context. If you want to find out what a statement means, you have to look to who uttered the statement- within the context the movie, Luke ‘means something’ when he speaks to Darth Vader. Within the broader context of reality, the writer of the screenplay means something with all the words he puts in their mouths.
The idea that the director ‘means’ to create one film and retire is completely seperate from what he meant when he wrote the lines for the characters, to my mind.
Well, then I don't understand what you're claiming with positivism. We seem to agree that a statement can have meaning even if the reciever doesn't understand it, so then meaning has to come back to the intention of the speaker, doesn't it?
Uccisore - I will adhere to my usual practise of not trying to outquote anyone. No one uttered the statement. It is fiction. I cannot be more clear than that. It’s just what fiction is. Nothing a fictional character says has literal meaning. This is really a “dictionary” issue, and not a philosophical one, per se. Entities that, by definition, do not exist, possess no intentions. Nor do they possess anything else.
If the hearer doesn’t understand the meaning of the speaker, and meaning is extant in the speaker’s statement, then that is a technical consideration. I have tried, I believe, to separate meaning from significance. You are free to accept or reject that distinction.
If no-one uttered the statement, then it’s not a statement, is it? It seems to me that if statements in fiction didn’t have meaning, we couldn’t follow the story, predict what was going to happen next, ‘get to know’ the characters and so on. A further complication would be those instances when we don’t know if we’re being exposed to fiction, or not.
Suppose Jesus never existed (a stretch I know, but just pretend), and was created as a fiction much the same way as Luke Skywalker- he was written about, words were put in His mouth and so on. Does that mean that words we took Him to say don’t mean anything, when it appeared until now that they do?
Worse yet, suppose we’re in a position of agnosticism about Jesus’ existence- we just aren’t sure whether or not there ever was such a person. Does that mean that statements like “Do unto others…” and so on may or may not mean something, and we’re unable to tell?
You got me there, Ucc. I should have said “no one made an utterance. It is make-believe.” Of course, the actor did, but he’s just acting. He doesn’t mean it. I have been on the stage, and have never uttered a line I meant.My position is that Jesus did not make statements about God, in any event. That’s impossible, according to my view.
That which he said that had meaning did not have meaning because he said it.
If Jesus is a fictional character, than his words don’t have meaning, if I understand your position. Similarly, if there was a Jesus, but he said completely different things than the one’s we’ve heard of, such that his portrayl in the Bible is essentially of a fictional character with His name, then again, the words would be without meaning. So it does seem to me that the words in the New Testament are either meaningful or not, based on wether or not Jesus said them, if I follow you.
Ucci - I fear you are not following me at all. I think Jesus was an actual historical personage. To a Christian, what he said has meaning because he was the Son of God. But for me, they do not, insofar as he spoke of God, or of anything metaphysical. Because it was metaphysical. Some things he said were not of that nature, and so some things he said have meaning, even for me.
If he is “fictional”, then his words may have the kind of meaning of which I have already spoken, but he could not have made statements, because he, then, did not exist. But that does not make him “fictional”, but fictitious. If I have called him “fictional” I misspoke, but I do not think I did, for I think he existed.
I’m trying to keep this simple. I realise that you do not agree with my position, but I am wondering if you understand it, thusly put.
I think I probably confused on a couple things, but let me clarify as well. My point wasn’t that you think Jesus did or did not exist, that was just a hypothetical, perhaps a bad choice of one. My point was simply that if statements attributed to fictional characters don’t have meaning, then that puts us in a difficult spot when it comes to statements attributed to characters who may or may not be fictitious. You’ve said, if I read you right, that the things Luke Skywalker ‘says’ in the films have no literal meaning. Words put in the mouth of a fictitious Jesus would be in the same predicament, right?
To use your own example: Thou shall not kill. In the Bible, that statement is attributed to God, who does not even rise to the level of fictitious from your point of view, yes? To my way of thinking, even if God doesn’t exist, the meaning of the statement is unchanged- I see the statement, and I get it.
If I can interject… Thou shalt not kill can easily have a literal meaning as an experiental decision, but not because God said it, but because I said it - and for very good pragmatic reasons. The difference may appear subtle, but it is a big difference nonetheless.
First, I want to try again to explain that there is a difference between a fictional character and a fictitious person. A fictional character is created to entertain, or to amuse, or as part of a work of art. Either Jesus existed or he did not. If the Bible is taken to be some sort of a novel, I think we have a different conversation.
Sorry to jump in and muddle this, but I don’t think I can resist; Uccisore, I don’t think they are meaningless as ideas. For one, a fictional character’s ‘statements’–I suppose faust has a problem with this term–still have definitive metaphorical or poetic meaning. For another, your interpretation and other people’s interpretation of them bestows meaning upon them; they are just not literal statements by the character, because they don’t literally exist as such. If Jesus’ statements were fictitious, it would mean that Jesus did not literally say them, and that, given that someone else would’ve stated them, and that you interpretted them, they still have meaning if you’re referring to the ideas themselves.
The whole point, I think, is that the meaning comes from perspectives looking upon what they see as a statement, and is not inherent in the statement or lack thereof itself. But then I’m certainly not much of a perspectivist.
faust, to momentarily diverge for a bit if I can get your attention, can something with meaning to you be neither true nor false to you? If not, would this mean that things like faith and anger are true or false according to the context of the relevent mind, as these emotions are, by definition, meaningful to the person? Also, and again, assuming your initial answer is “no,” wouldn’t the idea of one truth superceding another in value in a person’s mind be meaningful?
If your answer is “yes” to the first question, then you probably disagree with this post as a whole, and I don’t understand your definition of “meaning.”
“Anger”? The meaning of a single word is dependent, usually on the context. This is a different sense of meaning than I have been talking about. I have been talking about statements. I know the definition of “anger”, yes. But you are changing the example. Would you like to get back to statements? Would you like to use that word in a sentence?
Sorry–I did say I’d be diverging with those questions. With the assumption that Bill is angry at his dog, and thus his anger is meaningful to him, would the presence of that anger constitute truth in respect to the context of his mind? Would his anger truly be the way in which he views his relationship with his dog, or is it meaningless to use emotions with terms like ‘truth’?
I guess my overarching question pertains to the extent of the meaning you have been talking about; is every meaningful thing true or false?
His anger may be genuine. That this defines his entire view of his dog is something you might want to ask Bill. I think you may need more observation to form an opinion about it. Is it true, then, that anger defines this relationship? Is that your question? I don’t know.
I think you are missing my point. I am talking about truth not in these kinds of metaphysical terms, but only in regard to claims, assertions, or statements about reality. I don’t know about Bill and his dog, so I cannot determine the truth or falsity of your statements about it.
, the Priests were responsible for the re-enactment of tradition in the Tabernacle or Temple, however it is biblical tradition to question that authority. The Prophets were always criticising Kings and High Priests (that is why many met a bloody end) and questioned the worldly “System†of politics and power. It was also always the “inspired†who rebuilt the nation after Kings and High Priests had split the nation and caused surrounding powers to imprison the ruling caste and drag the people off to Babylon.