![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheSo, if Nietzsche is to be believed, one cannot truly understand a treatise's premises or arguments if one is not familiar with the language in which it was written. German philosophy, he proclaimed, can only be understood in its original language, for the tempo of one's mother tongue necessarily informs the intentions therein.
If this is true, then it is all pomp and nonsense that Catholics and Protestants argue with each other at all. The Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, which to my knowledge is no longer spoken; and the New Testament in ancient Greek, which also to my knowledge is no longer spoken. Thus, the closest interpretation to the original meaning is already missing. We will always be at least one level of understanding removed.
Symbolic languages, such as Chinese and Japanese, are hard to render into alphabetic language, such as English. How much so that Hebrew has been transliterated over so many years and with such a transformation of the concepts; and even more so that Greek, a very symbolic language, made its way (I daresay forcefully fitted) into Latin? How is it at all possible to argue semantics of the Western Bible, when itself has had its concepts defined, redefined, translated, and transliterated so many times?
Because of this, I insist upon viewing mythical stories and parables in the Christian Bible (as opposed to sections that reflect upon historical events) as symbolic in nature, instructful in the manners in which we of its creed perceive the world. It is an archetypal worldview.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm
Sounds a lot like Zen.
So, then, what is the Christ? Tonight, I thought of the one way I could visualize the Resurrection of the original Easter Sunday to have any validation in my worldview. It would be that Jesus had enough coherence and magnetism of thought, that his 'consciousness' became magnetized to the nearest other who had similar modes of thought. This would explain why the Apostles eventually believed that the new Jesus, who didn't look anything like the Jesus who'd just been crucified, was one and the same.
But I don't buy even that (though I am attempting to come up with a worldview that encompasses the idea of 'aligning incarnations' as opposed to literal reincarnation). I'd rather that Jesus brought about the idea of the Christ--he used the word to synthesize (or syncretize) his ideas that reflected what he thought to be the nature of God. Here, I mean ideas as memes.
And I believe we literally live in a world composed of ideas. Ideas all.
If this is true, then it is all pomp and nonsense that Catholics and Protestants argue with each other at all. The Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, which to my knowledge is no longer spoken; and the New Testament in ancient Greek, which also to my knowledge is no longer spoken. Thus, the closest interpretation to the original meaning is already missing. We will always be at least one level of understanding removed.
Symbolic languages, such as Chinese and Japanese, are hard to render into alphabetic language, such as English. How much so that Hebrew has been transliterated over so many years and with such a transformation of the concepts; and even more so that Greek, a very symbolic language, made its way (I daresay forcefully fitted) into Latin? How is it at all possible to argue semantics of the Western Bible, when itself has had its concepts defined, redefined, translated, and transliterated so many times?
Because of this, I insist upon viewing mythical stories and parables in the Christian Bible (as opposed to sections that reflect upon historical events) as symbolic in nature, instructful in the manners in which we of its creed perceive the world. It is an archetypal worldview.
The picture theory of meaning and logical atomism are untenable, Wittgenstein now maintained, and there is no reason to hope that any better versions of these basic positions will ever come along. Claims to have achieved a correct, final analysis of language are invariably mistaken. Since philosophical problems arise from the intellectual bewilderment induced by the misuse of language, the only way to resolve them is to use examples from ordinary language to deflate the pretensions of traditional thought. The only legitimate role for philosophy, then, is as a kind of therapy—a remedy for the bewitchment of human thought by philosophical language. Careful attention to the actual usage of ordinary language should help avoid the conceptual confusions that give rise to traditional difficulties.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm
Sounds a lot like Zen.
So, then, what is the Christ? Tonight, I thought of the one way I could visualize the Resurrection of the original Easter Sunday to have any validation in my worldview. It would be that Jesus had enough coherence and magnetism of thought, that his 'consciousness' became magnetized to the nearest other who had similar modes of thought. This would explain why the Apostles eventually believed that the new Jesus, who didn't look anything like the Jesus who'd just been crucified, was one and the same.
But I don't buy even that (though I am attempting to come up with a worldview that encompasses the idea of 'aligning incarnations' as opposed to literal reincarnation). I'd rather that Jesus brought about the idea of the Christ--he used the word to synthesize (or syncretize) his ideas that reflected what he thought to be the nature of God. Here, I mean ideas as memes.
And I believe we literally live in a world composed of ideas. Ideas all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2001-11-09 03:12 am (UTC)Nietzschean Hermeneutics
We're talking about hermeneutics here: what are we actually reading when we read a text? The truth is, if I read a text, in English, that was written 500 years ago, in English, I'm reading a different text, even if the words are exactly the same (and quite possibly they aren't — but that's a different issue). The contexts surrounding the words have changed. To think that words have an utterly solid, fixed meaning, is called fundamentalism. Look where that got us.
Postmodernism may have its problems (certainly it does) but at least we could learn from it, why fundamentalism, why believing that since we're reading the original words we get the original intended meaning, is a fallacy. Sure, I would rather read the original text rather than a translation. But if (as in the case of the Buddha's teachings) a translation is all that's available, I will gratefully learn all I can from it. In the case of the Buddha's words, that's quite a lot. Some things are lost in the translation. But we work with what we have. I'm personally grateful for it. Hell, I'm even grateful I can read Nietzsche in translation so I don't have to learn German! Take that, Mr. Fancypants philosopher!
Re: Nietzschean Hermeneutics
Date: 2001-11-09 02:07 pm (UTC)At the same time, I'm now looking forward to learning new languages, just so I can get a fuller meaning of original texts. Before, I was very apathetic about other languages... simply because I could be. I took two years of French in high school, and didn't learn a thing. I took a semester of Spanish in college, and learned just enough to get me through the oral exam and the final written one. Languages have heretofor been requirements, and I've hated that fact about them. We're in an English-speaking world, yes? Why the hell should I be required to learn a different language??
That was my old attitude, and a subliminal one at that.
I'm grateful that Nietzschean philosophy and other foreign-language works have been translated into English. The translations give us a window into the author's work. But I still would like a fuller interpretation of their meaning. And I realize that only I, by learning their native language, can do that; I can't depend on any intermediaries. To do so is to depend on the perceptions of others, and I can only be sure of the truth I glean from my own readings of texts.
Re: Nietzschean Hermeneutics
Date: 2001-11-09 04:11 pm (UTC)It would be fun to learn, say, Sanskrit or Pali, so I could read something closer to the Buddha's original words. Except he probably didn't speak either of those languages. But I completely see your point. You might like this:
http://home.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/av/agape.htm
It's right in line with what we're talking about. Threw me for a loop. I didn't get all the way through, but I dusted off my Bible with my name on it in gold letters, and struggled to remember the order of the books in the New Testament. So it was good for me. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2001-11-09 03:45 pm (UTC)