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...
| Auteurs: | ; |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Numérique/imprimé Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
[2017]
|
| Dans: |
Religion
Année: 2017, Volume: 47, Numéro: 4, Pages: 616-640 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Le sacré
/ Sens
/ Sémantique
/ Philosophie des religions
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions AB Philosophie de la religion |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
semantic theory
B semantic holism B Philosophy of religion B Sacred B Meaning B study of religion |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2017.1362784 |