The Literal and Symbolic: How do we understand ancient and religious philosophical texts?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k
    I am raising this question based on my own interest in reading texts from the past, including the Bible, as well as ones from Hinduism and many divergent traditions. For a long time, I have thought that the symbolic ideas are of importance.In my reading of the Christian tradition, I have found the Gnostic tradition as being extremely useful for thinking about symbolic ideas in Christianity and in general.

    The idea of symbolic reality is based on images, which arise in myths, religious experience and the arts. In the current time, scientific knowledge prevails, but I am not sure that symbolic systems have been cast aside entirely. I am asking if the metaphysical assumptions of traditions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism are essentially different from those embraced within the philosophy of Western culture are entirely different or about a contemplative approach, with intuitive understanding of the symboiic? This seems to be in line with the approach of the perennial philosophy, advocated by Aldous Huxley.

    Do you have any thoughts or feelings about this?
    Jack Cummins Options
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    We have symbolic perspectives on reality (vide Cassirer, Langer) but that in no way entails that 'reality is symbolic' (pace Plato, Berkeley). Such conflation amounts to a reification – misplaced concreteness – fallacy akin to psychologistic projection (vide Kant, Frege, Husserl); however, Jack, the map is not the territory (map =/= territory), the symbolic is not reality (or the real) which exceeds symbolization (vide Artie, Freddy, Witty ... Buber, Levinas ... Zapffe, Camus ...)

    My guess is (the metaphysical) presupposition of Eastern thought is nonduality in contrast to Western thought's multiplicity. A very unorthodox view, to be sure. There is, however, considerable overlap between these traditions that has been reaffirmed after millennia of mutual negligence in the last century or so of East-West comparative philosophy. An admirer of Aldous Huxley's novels for decades, though, I think his pimping of "perennial philosophy" is anachronistic and quite superficial. (NB: Morrison, IIRC, was referring to Blake and not Huxley when he suggested "The Doors" to Manzarek.)
    180 Proof Options
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    A few salient points.

    1. Punctuation:
    Man, dog ate vs Man dog, ate.

    2. Direction of writing assumption.
    Israelites killed Canaanites (left to right)
    Canaanites killed Israelites (right to left)


    Then there's top-to-bottom or bottom-to-up writing to consider.

    The idea is which direction of writing results in the resolution of frank contradictions/inconsistencies in ancient texts such as the Bible, given a literalism approach.

    3. Grammar issues.
    If "the" and plural indicators are absent in a language, (the) Israelite(s) killed (the) Canaanite(s). Yes/no genocide.

    :chin:
    Agent Smith Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories