Millet mistigi, milletinin varligi icin hayatini feda eden mesuliyet adamidir. Onun oldugu seyle ... more Millet mistigi, milletinin varligi icin hayatini feda eden mesuliyet adamidir. Onun oldugu seyle dusunduklerini, yani, eylemleriyle sozlerini birbirinden ayirmak mumkun degildir. Bagli bulundugu ogreti, onun dusunce, soz ve hareketlerinde donup bicim almis, yasayis haline gelmis ve hatta varolus sarti olmustur. Baska bir ifadeyle, dusunce ve inanclari ona, atesin demire nufuz etmesi gibi nufuz etmis ve onu donusturmustur. Bu yuzden, onun hareketleri dogru bildigi seyin gerceklesmesi icindir ve sonsuza ayarlidir; dunyevi bir menfaatin teminine yonelik degil. O, evrensel iyiyi, guzeli ve dogruyu umursadigindan, cikarlarini korumak icin kurnazca hesaplar yapan bir realist gibi hareket etmez. Cunku bir millet mistigi, menfaat ve cikari hayatinin merkezine koyan realistlerin aksine, baglandigi ogretiyi hayatinin merkezine koyar. Ayrica, millet mistigi cemiyet adami gibi, hayatin tum ayrintilariyla tespit edilmis olmasini istemez. Cunku bu durum, hayatta yaraticiliga ve yenilige olanak ta...
Theist is almost caught in the crossfire: If the words are to be used in the religious context wi... more Theist is almost caught in the crossfire: If the words are to be used in the religious context with the meanings that they gained in human experience, then those can not be applied to the infinite God; otherwise, if the language is emptied from its human roots, it becomes meaningless for human beings and not human language, and it can not talk of God this time. In more technical terms, the theist seems to have to choose one of univocal or equivocal language. In univocal language, the subject of discourse, which is entirely dependent on human experience, can not be God; in equivocal language, the semantic contents of the expressions evaporate. The equivocal use of language removes the anthropomorphic qualities of the words used to describe God, but this causes agnosticism. Neither anthropomorphic language nor negative language is enough for metaphysical issues. For example, when the person of God is in question, we may cause undesirable situations such as reduction him to the level of creatures or defining Him as if we were describing something that is not. So in this case, the theists can not know the meaning of the expressions about God. It is not even possible to say that: Does the notion of “existence” which is imposed on God, have a relationship with people`s daily use or is it not? When it was mentioned of His goodness, his love, His wisdom, to prefer to talk about God with non-explicit terms from the point of logic, it is nothing more than playing with words.
Millet mistigi, milletinin varligi icin hayatini feda eden mesuliyet adamidir. Onun oldugu seyle ... more Millet mistigi, milletinin varligi icin hayatini feda eden mesuliyet adamidir. Onun oldugu seyle dusunduklerini, yani, eylemleriyle sozlerini birbirinden ayirmak mumkun degildir. Bagli bulundugu ogreti, onun dusunce, soz ve hareketlerinde donup bicim almis, yasayis haline gelmis ve hatta varolus sarti olmustur. Baska bir ifadeyle, dusunce ve inanclari ona, atesin demire nufuz etmesi gibi nufuz etmis ve onu donusturmustur. Bu yuzden, onun hareketleri dogru bildigi seyin gerceklesmesi icindir ve sonsuza ayarlidir; dunyevi bir menfaatin teminine yonelik degil. O, evrensel iyiyi, guzeli ve dogruyu umursadigindan, cikarlarini korumak icin kurnazca hesaplar yapan bir realist gibi hareket etmez. Cunku bir millet mistigi, menfaat ve cikari hayatinin merkezine koyan realistlerin aksine, baglandigi ogretiyi hayatinin merkezine koyar. Ayrica, millet mistigi cemiyet adami gibi, hayatin tum ayrintilariyla tespit edilmis olmasini istemez. Cunku bu durum, hayatta yaraticiliga ve yenilige olanak ta...
Theist is almost caught in the crossfire: If the words are to be used in the religious context wi... more Theist is almost caught in the crossfire: If the words are to be used in the religious context with the meanings that they gained in human experience, then those can not be applied to the infinite God; otherwise, if the language is emptied from its human roots, it becomes meaningless for human beings and not human language, and it can not talk of God this time. In more technical terms, the theist seems to have to choose one of univocal or equivocal language. In univocal language, the subject of discourse, which is entirely dependent on human experience, can not be God; in equivocal language, the semantic contents of the expressions evaporate. The equivocal use of language removes the anthropomorphic qualities of the words used to describe God, but this causes agnosticism. Neither anthropomorphic language nor negative language is enough for metaphysical issues. For example, when the person of God is in question, we may cause undesirable situations such as reduction him to the level of creatures or defining Him as if we were describing something that is not. So in this case, the theists can not know the meaning of the expressions about God. It is not even possible to say that: Does the notion of “existence” which is imposed on God, have a relationship with people`s daily use or is it not? When it was mentioned of His goodness, his love, His wisdom, to prefer to talk about God with non-explicit terms from the point of logic, it is nothing more than playing with words.
Uploads
Papers by Cenan Kuvancı