Semantics and the sacred
This article looks at four different scholarly perspectives on ‘sacred’ - the ineffable sacred, the experienced sacred, the polarized sacred and the contextualized sacred - in order to draw out their implicit presuppositions about meaning. The first two stances presuppose that meaning depends on wha...
| Published in: | Religion |
|---|---|
| Authors: | ; |
| Format: | Electronic/Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
[2017]
|
| In: |
Religion
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
The Sacred
/ Meaning
/ Semantics
/ Religious philosophy
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism |
| Further subjects: | B
semantic theory
B semantic holism B Philosophy of religion B Sacred B Meaning B study of religion |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | This article looks at four different scholarly perspectives on ‘sacred’ - the ineffable sacred, the experienced sacred, the polarized sacred and the contextualized sacred - in order to draw out their implicit presuppositions about meaning. The first two stances presuppose that meaning depends on what bits of language are about (referentialism), and the other two stances presuppose that meaning depends on relations between bits of language (holism). The article concludes three things: these prominent views of ‘sacred’ rest on usually implicit or unrecognized assumptions about the nature of meaning; some of those assumptions explain why certain theories are contentious and problematic and others ground more promising and productive approaches. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0048-721X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2017.1362784 |