I ran across these theories today, and can't seem to quite wrap my mind around the concept. The idea that you can't have a meaningful discussion about religion because you can't understand the words involved ought to make sense, but instead just kind of sends my mind into a static filled spiral.
I admit, my mind is kind of in a fog due to accidental gluten consumption yesterday..... but does anyone else have trouble with this concept? Maybe I should stay away from philosphical type stuff on stumbleupon.com when my brain is impaired.
I read through them quickly, mostly because I am a bit read out of late with my philosophy class and reading class. (3 chapters yesterday and 2 chapters today.)
I think I understand the point they're trying to make. My gut reaction is to say that it's a semantics issue of the kind that tends to drive me mad. It's sophistry that leads, for me anyway, to insanity--as well as serious annoyance.
But I should qualify all of that by pointing to my very first sentence. I read it all quickly. (Therefore, I reserve the right to change my mind. )
It makes a bit more sense today after I re-read and noticed this part:
A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '."
That actually makes sense to me. One can completely ignore everything they might have heard about god or gods in their culture and then claim not to understand what the other person is talking about and refuse to have a conversation about it because they don't understand the basic concept.
I think it's less ignoring what one hears about God or gods and more recognizing that much of it is inchoate and contradictory. Ask ten different religions, or ten different sects within a religion, or ten different people within a sect, and the answers may narrow, but never fully resolve into a philosophically distinct whole.
Remember, the story of the blind men and the elephant is only meaningful if you're not blind, or perhaps if you're the elephant.
The "meaning" I always took from that was precisely that we're all "blind" in one sense or another.
That meaning presupposes:
1) they're all actually touching an elephant, as opposed to one touching an actual wall, one touching an actual rope, etc, and;
2) everyone "knows" what an elephant looks like. If everyone really were blind, arriving at a meaningful consensus on this question in the first place would be much harder.
I remember there being a philosophy professor who, in the first year course posed the question of "What is the meaning of life?". In the last year he posed the question ""What is the meaning of "What is the meaning of life?"?"
Here is a nice summary of what (famous) philosophers have thought on the subject.
)
