By Schubert Ogden
I've asked elsewhere (8 June 20(4) whether the basic distinction
shouldn't be that between "the being of God \[or ultimate reality\] in itself" and
"the meaning of God \[or ultimate reality\] for us."
I've asked elsewhere (8 June 2004) whether the basic distinction shouldnbasic distinction shouldn't be that between "the being of God \ [or ultimate reality\] in itself" and "the meaning of God \[or ultimate reality\] for us." ] in itself" and "the meaning of God [or ultimate reality] for us." Wiki Markup
Assuming, as I do, that the second term means more explicitly, "the meaning for us of the being of God [or ultimate reality] in itself," one should say that the meaning of God (or ultimate reality) for us is the meaning for us of God's (or ultimate reality's) being unfathomable mystery as well as ultraintelligible reason or Assuming, as I do, that the second term means more explicitly, "the meaning for us of the being of God \[or ultimate reality\] in itself," one should say that the meaning of God (or ultimate reality) for us is the meaning for us of God's (or ultimate reality's) being unfathomable mystery as well as ultraintelligible reason or word. Wiki Markup
7 May 2005