Heidegger

mP:
>> And, does not that possibility, that power, not lie in
>> a world that *is* more or less understandable: that language can
>> resonate with the world *because* the world *is* understandable, is
>> ordered, etc. This very intelligibility (of and in the world) that
>> language can house, can embrace is perhaps the logos? Logical, no?

Tude:
>>From the viewpoint of the Scripture (John 1:1 and Acts 17:28), the Word is
> the world and the world is the Word. They are not different from each other.
> God is the Word, and the Word is the world. Pantheism, thus. Logos also
> means reason (rationality), therefore God and world are rational, perhaps
> not from our very limited viewpoint (comprehending everything is an utopia
> for the size of our brains), but considered from God’s Own viewpoint.

Sorry, Tudor just noticed your response: briefly (I’m in the thick of it,
work, that is), naively, why do you drag God into this? Does the notion of
the (worldly) source of intelligibility and thus language’s possibility to
language (logos for me) necessarily involve some kind of god or theist
thinking? I certainly was not suggesting any kind of identity (lack of
difference)between world and word, rather, on the contary, that one is open
to the other (thus, they are utterly different)…

regards

michaelP

Posted on Thursday, July 12th, 2007 at 4:35 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback