Jacob Hesse

This article examines the attitude of worship by drawing on insights from the contemporary debate about the attitude of love. This seems justified because a certain kind of love appears to be an integral part of worship. Furthermore, the debate about love is much more developed and nuanced than the debate about worship. However, not every aspect we ascribe to love can equally be ascribed to worship. In fact, love is a very diverse phenomenon. The challenge is to focus on a form of love that, like worship, can plausibly be directed towards God. Contrary to previous attempts, it is argued that a merely passive form of love is not a suitable candidate for understanding the kind of love at play in worship. Based on considerations about love, it will be claimed that worship is an active form of value appraisal that involves reverence, awe, praise, and admiration. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of this line of interpretation for metatheological considerations.

Classical deviance theories about metaphor argue that the metaphorical sense of a word or expression, w, deviates from the sense of the word or expression interpreted literally. Developments in lexical pragmatics challenge these theories by claiming that deviance pervades (nearly) all aspects of linguistic communication. If deviance is the norm, then classical explanans offer little to no insight. In fact, many theorists have abandoned the idea of the literal-metaphorical distinction. This move carries significant consequences for theories of language and communication. We argue against this move and in favour of a linguistically robust literal-metaphorical distinction. We have three goals: The first is to argue that the literal-metaphorical distinction is important for theories of language and communication. The second is to assess Allott and Textor’s Non-Conformity View of deviance which gives up the idea that deviance is marked by a departure from conventional word meaning. Pace Allott and Textor, we claim that the literal-metaphorical distinction must ultimately be couched in some account of lexicalised meaning. Our third goal is to develop a form of qualified deviance that avoids what we take to be shortcomings of the Non-Conformity View.

After offering a definition of “conspiracy theory” and highlighting some interesting interconnections between conspiracy theories and religious worldviews, we turn to epistemologically relevant analogies. Proponents of conspiracy theories and religions have often been accused of the same biases and epistemic vices, e.g., gullibility, hypersensitive proneness to personal explanations, or overemphasis on holistic thinking. So-called Generalism is best understood as the thesis that conspiracy theories are guilty until proven innocent because they share certain “bunkum-making properties.” However, we argue for the particularist position, i.e. the position that a general epistemic presumption against conspiracy theories is not tenable. Building a negative valence into the very notion of conspiracy theory is not convincing either. Given the analogies, our analysis supports similar verdicts with respect to religious worldviews: Like conspiracy theories, they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than being dismissed simply for being religious. Finally, we reject Bezazel’s view that both conspiracy theories and religious worldviews constitute a-rational frames or “bliks” that, besides other things, ground what counts as an explanation. Such a proposal squares badly with epistemic misgivings about particularly preposterous examples of conspiracy theories and religious worldviews.

Religion scheint auf den ersten Blick eine besondere Anfälligkeit für Dogmatismus zu besitzen. Religiöse Überzeugungen sind häufig tief im Leben der Menschen verankert und religiöse Hingabe scheint in Spannung zu jedem Zweifel an dem Inhalt der jeweiligen Religion zu stehen. Auf der Basis von Ernst Cassirers Überlegungen kann im Gegensatz zu diesem Anschein eine Konzeption von Religion entwickelt werden, wonach sich diese gerade durch eine kritische Reflexion auf die eigenen Inhalte auszeichnet und im Gegensatz zu Aberglauben, Irrglaube und Wahnglaube, zu immer größerer Entfaltung von Freiheit führt.

In his transcendental approach, Cassirer argues that an objective world is not given and then simply copied by our cognitive faculties; rather, it is gained through the development of symbolic thought and perception. According to Cassirer, language plays a crucial role in this process of objectification. In this paper, the close relationship between language and symbolism in Cassirer’s philosophy will be delineated. This will also shed light on possible distinctions between human speech and animal communication. Furthermore, the relation of language to the different functions of consciousness and to the symbolic forms of myth and science will be addressed. Finally, based on the former considerations of language and objectification, Cassirer’s conceptions of reality and truth will be explicated and critically evaluated. It will be argued that his approach offers several interesting and promising insights but is nonetheless in danger of falling short in explaining the difference between artefacts and natural kinds.

In dieser Abhandlung wird zunächst die Analogielehre des Thomas von Aquin dargestellt. Darauf folgt die Entfaltung zweier grundlegender sprachphilosophischer Probleme dieser Theorie. In einem dritten Schritt werden zwei mögliche Alternativen zur thomistischen Theorie vorgestellt. Gemäß der ersten könnte man wie William Alston oder Richard Swinburne für eine Form der Univozität zwischen der Bedeutung der Ausdrücke plädieren, die von Gott und den Menschen gemeinsam gebraucht werden. Die zweite, hier favorisierte Lösungsstrategie kann über eine metaontologische Unterscheidung zwischen fundamentalen und nicht-fundamentalen Wahrheiten konsistent darlegen, wie man mit wörtlich verstandener Sprache wahre Aussagen über das Wesen Gottes machen kann, ohne dabei die Einfachheit Gottes preisgeben zu müssen.

According to proponents of the continuity hypothesis, metaphors represent one end of a spectrum of linguistic phenomena, which includes various forms of loosening/broadening, such as category extensions and approximations, as well as hyperbolic interpretations. The continuity hypothesis is used to establish that the inferences derived from the set of linguistic expressions mentioned above result from the same or nearly similar pragmatic processes. In this paper, we want to challenge that particular aspect of the continuity hypothesis. We do so based on considerations and analysis of an understudied linguistic phenomenon that we call the metaphorical uses of proper names (MPNs). We first explain how MPNs represent a unique linguistic class distinguishable from, for example, nicknames. In addition, we offer some remarks on how MPNs can be understood against the background of current debates between referentialists and predicativists about names. Our discussion leads us to conclude that MPNs are categorically different from literal interpretations of proper names. We spell out the consequences that the results of our analysis have for the continuity hypothesis.

Powerful transformer models based on neural networks such as GPT-4 have enabled huge progress in natural language processing. This paper identifies three challenges for computer programs dealing with metaphors. First, the phenomenon of Twice-Apt-Metaphors shows that metaphorical interpretations do not have to be triggered by syntactical, semantic or pragmatic tensions. The detection of these metaphors seems to involve a sense of aesthetic pleasure or a higher-order theory of mind, both of which are difficult to implement into computer programs. Second, the contexts relative to which metaphors are interpreted are not simply given but must be reconstructed based on pragmatic considerations that can involve presuppositional pretence. If computer programs cannot produce or understand such a form of pretence, they will have problems dealing with certain metaphors. Finally, adequately interpreting and reacting to some metaphors seems to require the ability to have internal, first-personal experiential and affective states. Since it is questionable whether computer programs have such mental states, it can be assumed that they will have problems with these kinds of metaphors.

This paper examines different functions of metaphors in religious language. In order to do that it will be analyzed in which ways metaphorical language can be understood as irreducible. First, it will be argued that metaphors communicate more than just propositional contents. They also frame their targets with an imagistic perspective that cannot be reduced to a literal paraphrase. Furthermore, there are also cases where metaphors are used to fill gaps of what can be expressed with literal language. In order to clarify this function of catachresis the notion of de re metaphors will be introduced. With those metaphors we can convey contents that we cannot conceptualize independently from a certain context of utterance. Hence, with such metaphors we can reach beyond the limits of our conceptual repertoire which is a crucial function for religious language. Finally, the consistency and plausibility of the radical position that all assertions about God are irreducibly and necessarily metaphorical if they are supposed to be true will be discussed on the basis of the results of the former considerations about the irreducibility of metaphors.

With the position, he labels as “new” or “metalinguistic agnosticism” Robin LePoidevin can avoid some problems with which fictionalists about religious language are confronted. Religious fictionalism is a position according to which all religious claims[1] are considered to be false when taken at face value. But because fictionalists about religious language think that certain religious worldviews have pragmatic benefits, they interpret several claims in such worldviews as true in fiction. This enables them to gain pragmatic benefits because they live as if a certain religious worldview were true. Nonetheless, they don’t believe that the respective worldview represents the non-fictional reality.[2][1] In the following I understand a “religious claim“ either as the claim that God exists or as a claim that presupposes the existence of God. Since also Le Poidevin focuses on theistic religions I want to keep this focus in my response. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that religious fictionalism is not restricted to theistic religions. I also think that metalinguistic agnosticism and the argumentation in this paper could in principle be extended to non-theistic religions.[2] A defense of religious fictionalism can be found in for example Andrew S. Eshleman, “Can an Atheist Believe in God?”, Religious Studies 41, no. 2 and Andrew S. Eshleman, “Religious Fictionalism Defended: Reply to Cordry”, Religious Studies 46, no. 1.