[lit-ideas] Re: Rortyana
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:06:37 +0100
*I Am that I Am* (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, *ehyeh ašer ehyeh* [ehˈje aˈʃer
ehˈje] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Hebrew>) is the common
English translation (JPS
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Publication_Society_of_America_Version>
among
others) of the response God <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> used in
the Hebrew
Bible <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible> when Moses
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses> asked for his name (Exodus
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus> 3:14). It is one of the most
famous verses in the Torah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah>. Hayah
means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular
imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be"
(or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:14. *Ehyeh asher ehyeh*literally
translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be", with attendant theological and
mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles,
in particular the King James Version
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version>, this phrase is rendered
as *I am that I am*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >God is the IS of isness as He Himself says of Himself and He is much too
> busy ising Himself into being
>
> I like the sound of ising>
>
> Perhaps we're on the verge of a major philosophical breakthrough - "The Is
> Ises".
>
> Dnl
>
>
> On Saturday, 28 February 2015, 0:01, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <
> dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2015 1:13:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> Words of inherent meaning,
>
> For the record, the contents to Rorty's Linguistic Turn. What a book!
> Full
> of inherent meanings and some exherent, too!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> ----
>
> RORTY, ed. The Linguistic Turn.
>
> Introduction
>
> Richard M. Rorty,
> "Metaphysical Difficulties of Linguistic Philosophy"
>
> Part I:
> Classic Statements of the Thesis That Philosophical Questions Are
> Questions
> of Language
>
> Essay 1. Moritz Schlick,
> "The Future of Philosophy:
>
> Essay 2. Rudolf Carnap
> "On the Character of Philosophical Problems"
>
> Essay 3. Gustav Bergmann,
> "Logical Positivism, Language, and the Reconstruction of Metaphysics (in
> part)"
>
> Essay 4.
> Rudolf Carnap,
> "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology"
>
> Essay 5. Gilbert Ryle,
> "Systematically Misleading Expressions"
>
> Essay 6. John Wisdom,
> "Philosophical Perplexity"
>
> Essay 7. Norman Malcolm,
> "Moore and Ordinary Language"
>
> Part II
> "Metaphilosophical Problems of Ideal-Language Philosophy"
>
> Essay 8a. Irving Copi
> "Language Analysis and Metaphysical Inquiry"
>
> Essay 8b.
> Gustav Bergmann,
> "Two Criteria for an Ideal Language"
>
> Essay 8c. Irving Copi,
> "Reply to Bergmann"
>
> Essay 9. Max Black,
> "Russell's Philosophy of Language (in part)"
>
> Essay 10a. Alice Ambrose,
> "Linguistic Approaches to Philosophical Problems"
>
> Essay 10b. Roderick Chisholm
> "Comments on the "Proposal Theory" of Philosophy"
>
> Essay 11. James W. Cornman,
> "Language and Ontology"
>
> Essay 12. Willard v. O. Quine,
> "Semantic Ascent" (from Word and Object)
>
> Part III -
> Metaphilosophical Problems of Ordinary-Language Philosophy
>
> Essay 13. Roderick Chisholm
> "Philosophers and Ordinary Language"
>
> Essay 14. John Passmore
> "Arguments to Meaninglessness: Excluded Opposites and Paradigm Cases"
> (from
> Philosophical Reasoning)
> Essay 15a. Grover Maxwell and Herbert Feigl
> "Why Ordinary Language Needs Reforming"
>
> Essay 15b. Manley Thompson,
>
> "When Is Ordinary Language Reformed?"
>
> Essay 16a. R. M. Hare,
> "Philosophical Discoveries"
>
> Essay 16b. Paul Henle,
> "Do We Discover Our Uses of Words?"
>
> Essay 17. Peter Geach
> "Ascriptivism"
>
> Essay 18. James W. Cornman
> "Uses of Language and Philosophical Problems"
>
> Essay 19. J. O. Urmson
> "J. L. Austin"
>
> Essay 20a. Stuart Hampshire
> "J. L. Austin"
>
> Essay 20b. J. O. Urmson and G. Warnock
> "J. L. Austin"
>
> Essay 20c. Stanley Cavell,
> "Austin at Criticism"
>
> Essay 21. Stuart Hampshire
> "The Interpretation of Language; Words and Concepts"
>
> Part IV -
> Recapitulations, Reconsiderations, and Future Prospects
>
> Essay 22. Dudley Shapere
> "Philosophy and the Analysis of Language"
>
> Essay 23. Stuart Hampshire
> "Are All Philosophical Questions Questions of Language?"
>
> Essay 24a. J. O. Urmson,
> "The History of Analysis"
>
> Essay 24b. Discussion of Urmson's "The History of Analysis"
> (by the participants in the 1961 Royaumont Colloquium)
>
> Essay 25a. P. F. Strawson,
> "Analysis, Science, and Metaphysics"
>
> Essay 25b.
> Discussion of Strawson's "Analysis, Science and Metaphysics" (by the
> participants in the 1961 Royaumont Colloquium)
>
> Essay 26. Max Black,
> "Language and Reality"
>
> Essay 27. Jerrold J. Katz,
> "The Philosophical Relevance of Linguistic Theory"
>
> Essay 28. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel,
> "A Pre-Requisite for Rational Philosophical Discussion"
>
> Two Retrospective Essays by Richard M. Rorty
> "Ten Years After"
> "Twenty-five Years After"
>
> Bibliography
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
>
Other related posts:
