To determine a word’s meaning, we use a dictionary. The dictionary often gives us several definitions, and we pick one out according to the context of the word we’ve read. So the meaning of a word is based on context and identity (definition).
When we say a gesture means a lot to us, it is because it has importance and applies to us in a specific way, at a specific time, in a specific context.
When we say a gesture means a lot to us, it is because it has importance and applies to us in a specific way, at a specific time, in a specific context.
When we have a meaningful relationship with a person, it is because we share many meaningful things with him or her. We are within one another’s context. A husband and wife share children, who, as persons, have a great capacity to provide meaning.
It is unjust when a thing has the identity and context to mean a great deal to us, but doesn’t. Ignoring one’s children is an injustice of this kind.
There is a network of things that ought to mean a great deal to us, and a network of things that actually mean a great deal to us. The more these two networks are in sync, the more true meaning we have in our lives.
Our network of valid meaning is both determined for us and by us. We may choose to have children, but we don’t choose who our children are. It is a matter of responsibility (justice) to accept the aspect of our choice that we did not determine.
For Christians, the Word of God is the "meaning of life." He is the Creator of the network of meaning, “without him was made nothing that was made,” and he is the cornerstone of meaning itself, “in Him all things hold together.” (Jn 1:3; Col 1:17).
For something to be meaningful, it must point beyond itself: A word is always spoken about something; a person discovers meaning when he dedicates himself to some cause; the Word of God points to the One who spoke Him, the Father. Our “meaning of life” is the thing toward which our whole being points.
According to the word of God, a person is in the image of God. His very existence, then, points to God, and all his meaning comes from God. This is a part of the network of meaning he has not chosen. It is up to him to choose God as the meaning of his life.
I am interested in the idea that meaning is both context and identity (definition). I thought you were able to show how meaning relates to context. I would like to hear more on how meaning relates to identity.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as if this article is saying that in order to know the meaning of an item one needs to know the 1st person and 3rd person perspective of the item being examined. Context refers to the 3rd person perspective of an item. Identity refers to the 1st person perspective. If I am trying to determine the meaning of tree I have to look at how the tree relates to its environment (3rd person) and the tree itself (1st person).
Determining what tree means according to its context is simpler than determining what it means according to its identity. For the context all one has to do is observe the tree in its environment. For the identity one has to go into the being of the tree itself.
This point being said, some modern philosophers might argue that one cannot determine meaning, because one can never "go into the being" of something else. All we have is context and we can never obtain identity.
However, your article here attempts to answer the problem of determining an items identity by referring to God. This is a statement that comes from faith, particularly faith in God. My question here is, does all meaning come from faith? If so, how can I be certain about anything?
I like the originality of the idea that identity refers to first person and context to third person. It seems as though that only refers to persons, though, because a non-personal object doesn't have a first person. Also, it seems as though using the third person can help identify an object (e.g. it is a tree).
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though identity flows from context. When we identify something, we do so according to the categories it belongs to. For example, man is a rational animal. He is most closely related to animals and rational beings. So we know what he is according to his context. The question arrises: Have we really said what a person is by putting him in these categories? Or is there some unique identity for each individual person. Some "I" that is unique and uncategorizable.
I like how you ask whether all meaning comes from faith. In a sense it does, because all things ultimately point to the Trinitarian God (in whom context and identity are one: He is Father because he has the Son). But within this structure of all things pointing to God, there are subsets in which things point both to God and to other things. For example, if I make a table for my parents, the table can be meaningful to them because it points to me, and I might be meaningful to them because, as a person, I point to God.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. A better way to clarify what I mean by "first person" and "third person" is to use the word perspective instead of person. First perspective refers to identity because it is a perspective from the being itself. An interior experience of the being. Simply put, if I want to know the identity of a tree I have to be that tree. If this is not true all we have is context in which to derive meaning for an item. Context refers to 3rd perspective because it is trying to derive the meaning of an item from its exterior relations. What I mean here is that 3rd perspective is referring to a 3rd parties objective opinion, so to speak. 1st perspective refers to the thing itself and its perspective (its experience of life).
ReplyDeleteHere is an example of what I am saying. In order to know the meaning of a tree I will study how the tree interacts with its environment and how the environment interacts with the tree. This, no doubt, refers to context (or 3rd perspective). I have an exterior glance at the item and its surroundings. From this perspective I get a closer understanding of what the meaning of tree is. After I have finished this endeavor I then realize that I have only looked at the tree from an exterior perspective (3rd perspective). I, however, have neglected to see the perspective of the tree. So I leave my being and become the being of that tree. From here I finally finished my research, because I achieved an interior and exterior perspective of the tree. I know finally the meaning of a tree!
This last part of my example, however, is not possible. The moment I leave myself I no longer can experience the perspective of the tree, because I am no longer myself. I am speaking oddly here only to greater clarify what I am thinking.
I, however, believe that there is a better way to know the identity of an item. Even better than becoming the very being one is examining. What is that? To ask the creator of that being. Also, all things derive and sustain their being in the very being of God; yet those created by God are not God himself but rather His creation. Therefore, God has both perspectives 1st and 3rd, for He is in the being of all things, sustaining them in existence, yet transcends all things.
This being said faith in God and what he says is the most certain we can be about the meaning of anything because He is the only one who can obtain both perspectives.
If one does not believe in God one must then resort to uncertainty. What do you think about this?
P.S. Thanks for responding so quickly. I hope to hear from you soon.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI think you raise some interesting points. You seem to be struggling with the question of whether we know things in themselves, and if so, how. In answering this question, you seem to move from an Aristotelian perspective (that we can know things in themselves) to a Kantian perspective (that we can't know things in themselves) to the perspective that knowledge comes through faith in God.
Of these four, who knows a tree in itself: a scientist, a poet, an artist, or a philosopher? Let me generalize a little bit for the sake of argument. The scientist focuses on the material of the tree. The poet focuses on the relation between himself and the tree. The artist focuses on the form of the tree. The philosopher focuses on the purpose of the tree. So who knows the tree in itself? I think that they all do, and each can learn from the others.
Things can only be known in themselves insofar as they are knowable. I think that a tree cannot be known in terms of its own perspective because trees don't have perspectives, only persons have perspectives. So to know a person in himself, one must take on his perspective and become his friend; but to know a tree in itself, one must know it as a scientist, poet, artist and philosopher, but not as a friend.
I think that God has given us reason to discover what things are in themselves, though he may infuse knowledge of things in us if he chooses to.
This is a great conversation, thanks for posting!
I really like that response Peter. Things can only be known in themselves insofar as they are knowable. I like that a lot. Also, your insights into scientists, poets, artists, and philosophers are very refreshing. Thanks a lot!
ReplyDeleteI really like how your answer states how we can know the tree but implies that we don't know everything about the tree. I believe that. It's also nice to see different ways we can get to know one thing. This discussion highlights the mystery of life. Life is like an endless ocean of beauty and truth. Once one finds some speck of treasure he is then urged to find the whole lot of it; only to discover that the treasures are never ending! Life is overflowing! The closer one comes to discovering this, the closer he is to God.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is always more to learn, more to know, more to receive. A lot of cultures promote this wonder at the immensity of being. For example, check out this ancient Chinese poem called "A Vision." I'll quote the first paragraph:
ReplyDelete"In the Nine Provinces there is not room enough:
I want to soar high among the clouds,
And, far beyond the Eight Limits of the compass,
Cast my gaze across the unmeasured void.
I will wear as my gown the red mists of sunrise,
And as my skirt the white fringes of the clouds:
My canopy--the dim lustre of Space:
My chariot--six dragons mounting heavenward:
And before the light of Time has shifted a pace
Suddenly stand upon the World's blue rim.