Hi, William, At 08:32 PM 9/28/03 +1200, you wrote: >>I don't see that taking some sentences literally assumes "an exact correspondence >>between words and reality" or "that words are isomorphic with reality". Therefore I >>suppose Literalism does not assume it either.<<
I would not say so if one merely takes some sentences literally. However, please read further. >>>My argument: Taking sentences literally means not taking them as metaphor, >>>allegory, figurative, reaching for a meaning beyond words, and such like.<< Proponents of literalism are usually willing to take certain verses as metaphor if they *literally* use metaphorical or poetic language. For instance, many biblical literalists are willing to read the Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse) as symbolic because it is, they contend, written in symbolic language. However, since many literalists argue that other verses, such as references to Christ returning on a cloud, are not written poetically or metaphorically, they feel obliged to take them as explicit prose. In other words, literalists generally assume that any text should be understand according to its obvious, not symbolic, meaning unless are persuaded otherwise by the style of language. The key to literalism is not how specific texts are interpreted. That can vary from exegete to exegete and denomination to denomination. The keys are an assumption of isomorphism and a hostility toward higher criticism. Consider the hostility which many Christian fundamentalists exhbiit toward the social sciences. >>I suppose Literalism is the view, with regard to some class of words, say those in >>the Bible, that we read them literally, and that if taken literally they are true.<< Yes, but what does it mean that something is literally true? >>>But this is not to be committed to the views that (a) there is an exact >>>correspondence between words and reality; or (b) that words are isomorphic with >>>reality.<< That is my understanding of literalism. Literalists are usually willing to consider genre (prose or poetry, for instance). However, most, but not all, of them are less open to textual (higher) criticism. To a true literalist, all one needs is the text. Many literalists, for instance, are fond of word studies. It matters not whether Paul wrote to the Corinthians or the Ephesians, or whether one is considering the writings of other biblical writers. It is all God-breathed (inspired and inerrant). The historical and social context of the writer is not particularly relevant. (Of course, some literalists have been somewhat flexible on this issue.) >>>IF it is, then I am committed to (a) and (b), and I suppose most everyone is, >>>because I do take a class words as having literal meaning.<< There is a difference between understanding word definitions and a willingness to consider their social and historical contexts. >>I wouldn't know how to define this class exactly, but it is most everyday serious >>sentences I hear and read. For example, my wife saying in the morning "It is 7 am", >>and the sentence in the newspaper: "No weapons of mass destruction have been found >>in Iraq". But (in my view) me taking this class of sentences literally does not >>commits me to (a) and (b). Further, I don't see why the commitments of the >>literalist with regard to the Bible are any different. >>So, Mark, what is wrong with my argument?<< Nothing, in this particular case. However, you are speaking as a participant in a particular space and time. >>So while I don't think taking some sentences literally implies or assumes (a) and >>(b), it may be either that some Literalists do accept (a) and (b) just in order to >>always have literal meanings; or that imputing (a) and (b) to them is the best way >>of making sense of them taking some kinds of sentences literally. In that case you >>might say, as you did Mark did, that they assume (a) and (b). But I am not sure that >>was what you meant.<< You are using the term "literalism" differently than I am. Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
