Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Matthew Carroll

Saved on

compared with

New Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Matthew Carroll

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Wiki Markup
I have become accustomed to distinguishing between "the structure of  
God \[or ultimate reality\] in itself" and "the meaning of God \[or ultimate reality\]  
for us." But one difficulty with doing this is that it is not simply the utterly  
abstract metaphysical _structure_ _of God (or ultimate reality) of which the meaning  
of God (or of ultimate reality) for us is the meaning; it is rather the whole  
concrete_ _being_ _of God (or of ultimate reality), which, of course, includes its  
abstract structure._ _being_ _of  
I have become accustomed to distinguishing between "the structure of God \[or ultimate reality\] in itself" and "the_ _meaning_ _of God \[or ultimate reality\]  for us. The further distinction between_ _structure_ _and meaning can then play its proper role of distinguishing respectively between relatively abstract and relatively concrete ways of dealing with being._ _material_ _object, while "structure" and "meaning" are the proper terms to refer to the_ _fonnal_ _objects respectively of two different ways of dealing with this material object, i.e., of metaphysics, on the one hand, and of faith or religion, on the other._

So I wonder whether the basic distinction shouldn't be between "the

" But one difficulty with doing this is that it is not simply the utterly abstract metaphysical structure of God (or ultimate reality) of which the meaning of God (or of ultimate reality) for us is the meaning; it is rather the whole concrete being of God (or of ultimate reality), which, of course, includes its abstract structure. 

Wiki Markup
So I wonder whether the basic distinction shouldn't be between "the being of God \[or ultimate reality\] in itself" and "the meaning of God \[or ultimate reality\] for us. The further distinction between structure and meaning can then play its proper role of distinguishing respectively between relatively abstract and relatively concrete ways of dealing with being.

Perhaps another way of formulating this question is to ask whether whether "being" isn't the proper term to refer to God (or ultimate reality) as material object, while "structure" and "meaning" are the proper terms to refer to the fornal objects respectively of two different ways of dealing with this material object, i.e., of metaphysics, on the one hand, and of faith or religion, on the other. 

8 June 2004