Gadamer and the Logos

[doppelganger]

"Nothing exists except through language." Hans-Georg Gadamer

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." - John 1:1

 

[Biblestudent_007]

It could be said that the Logos is the principle which orders everything in the Universe.

 

[doppelganger]

It could be said that the Logos is the principle which orders everything in the Universe.

I think you may be on to something. How do you think it does that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that we should read this quote as "No human understanding exists without language."

However, Gadamer did make great use of Augustine's interpretation of John 1:1 to come to this conclusion.

Making these two quotes somehow meet, I think, bends both out of context. I think that Gadamer said, if I recall correctly, something like "I'm going to take what Augustine said about John 1:1 and apply Augustine's theological method to my philosophy."

Without that crucial Augustinian link, there's no relationship between John 1:1 and Gadamer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think you may be on to something. How do you think it does that?

That's cute, dopp.

 

[Songbird]

Hmm....a beacon? I can't keep pace with those whom you may wish to discuss this, but I've been reading about language, thought, and perception lately. While meaning isn't located in words but in our thoughts, our thoughts can't form meaningfully without language. Language dictates our perception.

Reminds me of a section in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, where he attributed some cultural strengths to linguistic differences. One of his examples was examining why Asians are better at math. He explained how the Chinese language makes counting, fractions, and other mathematical concepts easier for Chinese children to learn. If I remember correctly, he also mentioned how the German language influences logical processing.

I just realized this is in the Theism section and my comment is irrelevant. C'est la vie.

Oh, and hoooooray for me pointing out the obvious about perception and language. I'm so helpful lately.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hmm....a beacon? I can't keep pace with those whom you may wish to discuss this, but I've been reading about language, thought, and perception lately. While meaning isn't located in words but in our thoughts, our thoughts can't form meaningfully without language. Language dictates our perception.

Reminds me of a section in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, where he attributed some cultural strengths to linguistic differences. One of his examples was examining why Asians are better at math. He explained how the Chinese language makes counting, fractions, and other mathematical concepts easier for Chinese children to learn. If I remember correctly, he also mentioned how the German language influences logical processing.

I just realized this is in the Theism section and my comment is irrelevant. C'est la vie.

What Gadamer is doing is he's putting mathematics and science into the realm of the arts by arguing that since math and science must be shaped and communicated via language, these disciplines are subject to faults of language. So math and science are not all that dispassionate or free from cultural controls.

By saying that nothing exists without language, he says everything that exists beings in language and therefore begins in weakness that needs to be perfected through dialog.

 

[Songbird]

What Gadamer is doing is he's putting mathematics and science into the realm of the arts by arguing that since math and science must be shaped and communicated via language, these disciplines are subject to faults of language. So math and science are not all that dispassionate or free from cultural controls.

By saying that nothing exists without language, he says everything that exists beings in language and therefore begins in weakness that needs to be perfected through dialog.

Is that a reasonable view? To me it seems to be. Not that language is the prerequisite for existence, but it's necessary for meaning to be applied.

 

[doppelganger]

I think that we should read this quote as "No human understanding exists without language."

However, Gadamer did make great use of Augustine's interpretation of John 1:1 to come to this conclusion.

I don't fancy myself any kind of Gadamer scholar, so I'll take your word for it.

I was apparently in the mood to be obtuse when I posted this with no commentary or questions.

The connection I see between them is simply the idea that for all our searching for the "existence of God", tomes of theology and elaborate metaphysics, we don't really have to any further than the architecture of thought and language to find the ground of all being.

 

[doppelganger]

By saying that nothing exists without language, he says everything that exists beings in language and therefore begins in weakness that needs to be perfected through dialog.

Er, he needs to read the first part of your sentence then and save himself the trouble with that last part.


Mathematics is a symbolic shorthand for representing structures that are still fundamentally linguistic/grammatical/logical.

 

[doppelganger]

Is that a reasonable view? To me it seems to be. Not that language is the prerequisite for existence, but it's necessary for meaning to be applied.

How do things "exist"? What makes the difference for you between things that exist and things that do not exist?

 

[Quagmire]

If the universe was created by a word, and there was no one there to speak it to, than it was actually created by a thought, since all a thought is is a sentient being speaking to itself.

So basically John resolves Genesis to the Vedas.

 

[doppelganger]

So basically John resolves Genesis to the Vedas.

Yep. Though the author(s) of "John" weren't the first to do this in the west. And it's been heretical to read it that way for most of the history of Christendom.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Er, he needs to read the first part of your sentence then and save himself the trouble with that last part.


Mathematics is a symbolic shorthand for representing structures that are still fundamentally linguistic/grammatical/logical.

Oh, I agree. I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or clarifying what I said, LOL.

But it's not immediately obvious to some people that math is language based, because it is the most positivist form of human reason. It's the least biased - I agree - but it's still biased.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yep. Though the author(s) of "John" weren't the first to do this in the west. And it's been heretical to read it that way for most of the history of Christendom.

He might be the first to do it without ever seeing the Vedas.

 

[doppelganger]

He might be the first to do it without ever seeing the Vedas.

Don't be so sure. There's a growing body of evidence that there may have been a significant community of Buddhist priests in Alexandria in the first century. Some early accounts of "John" were said to have attributed the work to Cerinthus, who was an Egyptian "Gnostic". Even if not Cerinthus, this could be the work of an sophisticated Alexandrian Neo-Platonist who was familiar with Greek, Jewish and Buddhist traditions.

And Eusebius's "Therapeutae" may have been these Buddhists. Impossible to know for sure though.

Buddhism and the Roman world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[doppelganger]

Hey Nate, have you read Pagels' "Beyond Belief" yet?

 

[Quagmire]

If the universe was created by a word, and there was no one there to speak it to, than it was actually created by a thought, since all a thought is is a sentient being speaking to itself.

So basically John resolves Genesis to the Vedas.

and the Matrix.

 

[doppelganger]

and the Matrix.

I think the Wachowski brothers got the idea much later.

 

[Quagmire]

I think the Wachowski brothers got the idea much later.

Time is relative (and also a function of language).