To Name it is to Possess it.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » To Name it is to Possess it. » To Name it is to Possess it.

To Name it is to Possess it.

Page: 1 2 3

To Name it is to Possess it.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 04/10/04 - 06:07 PM:	#1
I am thinking about how the OT Bible & ( Torah ) is unusual amongst all religious texts in that it speaks of the unique power of words. Two immediate examples come to mind. In the opening passages of Genesis, God is said to possess "the word" ( some translate this as the thought ) And that the "word" was (with) God. God then "speaks" the words "Let their be light" and the Universe comes into being. Then after God creates Adam, he encourages Adam to name things. It is interesting that God (walking in the garden with Adam ) does not actually name anything. He leaves that job to Adam. In this act, Adam draws a connection between the act of naming and the thing itself. Language then possibly becomes a metaphor of identification and also of possession. I appreciate this is pure conjecture, but it leads to both distinction, (seperation from the animal world) as well as it's possession and ultimate domination. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding, but it seems to me that something important about language's original function was being reflected in those passages that we have possibly lost in the mists of time...
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

VT Math02
Multiple Soliptist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 08, 2004
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 183

Posted 04/10/04 - 06:56 PM:	#2
Grammaticus wrote: In the opening passages of Genesis, God is said to possess "the word" ( some translate this as the thought ) And that the "word" was (with) God. This passage is the first verse of the Gospel of John, which I had always been told it refers to Jesus. Could it not also literally mean the Word i.e. language? Would this mean that language is God, which we use to define and control all things?
It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world. -Aristotle

judih
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2004
Location: kibbutz, israel
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/10/04 - 07:23 PM:	#3
? control? man does not control all things. what is a name? That which is known as a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet - so said Juliet in Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", and it's true. By assigning the job of naming to Adam, could it not indicate that man was the 'bean counter' of the planet - the score keeper, the scribe. Language is such an important tool. Look what happens when one person chooses 'sure' and the other chooses 'okay'. It is with pure relief that the two understand one another. For nothing in language is a given. There can always be misinterpretation if two people are unable to hook into the same wavelength. What i call a huge snake, to you might be a joke. My 'name' will be subjective unless i use the term 'python' to give you more of a specific representation of why i hesitate to pick up the fine fellow. Adam got the job of picking which name would represent which item. Hence, there are certain basic words which we can agree on. It's a good start! (the Tower of Babel left us with little, other than these few nameable commodities) judih

VT Math02
Multiple Soliptist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 08, 2004
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 183

Posted 04/10/04 - 07:29 PM:	#4
But consider the number of versions of the Bible. People are always coming up with new translations as language changes. Words, more specifically their connatations and different meaning that you refered to, have been used to control the masses since word was first spoken. Even the Babel story is an example of God using language to control things. Adam naming everything was not just him giving a discreptor to things. It was symbolic of God giving him dominion over all creation.
It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world. -Aristotle

judih
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2004
Location: kibbutz, israel
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/10/04 - 07:33 PM:	#5
giving my child a name is not something that gives me power over my child. Think about it once more. It is symbolic of a relationship : that is the one 'naming' has certain higher abilities than the one 'named' but that does not mean that total dominion exists. It is quite clear, however, that when the Old Testament is translated into English that many concepts are open to interpretation. That's why such phrases need to be read in the original tongue. Or, alternatively, we must accept that each one of us will interpret the meaning according to our own understanding and the translation that we feel most comfortable reading. judih

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1880

Posted 04/10/04 - 09:10 PM:	#6
Greek: 'logos'

Spaces
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Total Topics: 62
Total Posts: 646

Posted 04/10/04 - 11:04 PM:	#7
To name it is to position it. Spaces

Beano
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
Location: London
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 181

Posted 04/10/04 - 11:38 PM:	#8
Grammaticus wrote: I am thinking about how the OT Bible & ( Torah ) is unusual amongst all religious texts in that it speaks of the unique power of words. Two immediate examples come to mind. In the opening passages of Genesis, God is said to possess "the word" ( some translate this as the thought ) And that the "word" was (with) God. God then "speaks" the words "Let their be light" and the Universe comes into being. Then after God creates Adam, he encourages Adam to name things. It is interesting that God (walking in the garden with Adam ) does not actually name anything. He leaves that job to Adam. In this act, Adam draws a connection between the act of naming and the thing itself. Language then possibly becomes a metaphor of identification and also of possession. I appreciate this is pure conjecture, but it leads to both distinction, (seperation from the animal world) as well as it's possession and ultimate domination. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding, but it seems to me that something important about language's original function was being reflected in those passages that we have possibly lost in the mists of time... As has been pointed out it is not true that "In the opening passages of Genesis, God is said to possess "the word" ( some translate this as the thought ) And that the "word" was (with) God." This is from Johns gospel written less that 2000 years ago and so there is less in the way of mists of time between now and then. "the OT Bible & ( Torah ) is unusual amongst all religious texts in that it speaks of the unique power of words." I think not! Pretty well all cultures have had ideas of powerful words, of invocations, of the magical use of words. Hinduism has the word 'Om' as an important and central feature. "God then "speaks" the words "Let their be light" and the Universe comes into being. " - It is nice to know that the universe is tolerant of typos. "Then after God creates Adam, he encourages Adam to name things. It is interesting that God (walking in the garden with Adam ) does not actually name anything. He leaves that job to Adam. In this act, Adam draws a connection between the act of naming and the thing itself. " There is no mention in the naming scene (Genesis 2:18-20) of God walking in the garden with Adam. God says that he will make a helper for Adam and forms every beast of the field and bird of the air and brings them to Adam to see what he will name them. There is no mention at all of anything resembling the idea that "In this act, Adam draws a connection between the act of naming and the thing itself. " I have no idea where you got this from. On a number of occassions in the Hebrew Bible a person or place is given a name that reflects an event or characterisitc, or role etc of the person or place named (woman (ishshah) is so called because she was taken out of man (ish)). This happens in other cultures too.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 04/11/04 - 07:40 AM:	#9
It is a mark of superstition to identify the word and the thing, or even to think that (except in special circumstances) words can create objects. Pious Jews, as you know, sometimes refuse to spell "God," but elide the vowel, so, "G_D." thinking it is somehow sinful to spell it out. (It is a little the way people used to, and still do, refuse to spell out the notorious "F" word, although everyone knows what they mean when they do it. It is often believed in primitive societies that language has, somehow the power that things have. But, if I write the word, "Nietzsche" on the blackboard, that is not Nietzsche, himself on the blackboard. The relation between words and things is a matter of convention, tacit agreement, among the speakers of the language. That is shown by the fact that there are different signs for different things in different languages. Also, consider the sounds claimed for different kinds of animal. They are considered onomatopeic (imitative of the actual sounds made by the animal) but even here, convention is much of it. For instance, dogs go "bow-wow" or "arf-arf" in English, but when dogs speak French, they go, "ouah-ouah," and when they speak Korean, they go, "mung-mung," and Italian dogs go, "bau-bau." So I guess there is a tower of babel in dogdom. See the site,: www.georgetown.edu/cball/animals/ An exception to the sharp separation there is between words and the world is that of performative language (famously explored by the late English philosopher, J.L. Austin) Roughly, A performative is an action done by speech. For instance, if one says the words "I promise...." in the appropriate circumstances, then that IS the act of promising. You promise by saying the words. "I promise." Or, to take another example, a politician who smashes a bottle of champagne across the bow of a ship, and says the words, "I name this ship, "The sink or swim," has named the ship. So, in the case of performative (utterances), saying something is doing something-an action.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5423

Posted 04/11/04 - 01:20 PM:	#10
Gassy has pinpointed the reason many people consider religions superstitions. With all that illogic going on, why would one trust a religious authority?
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.