epistemology

What Do Names Do? Do They Reflect or Do They Evoke?

The opening words of Martin Buber’s magnum opus, I and Thou, begin: “Basic words do not state something that might exist outside them; by being spoken they establish a mode of existence.”

When Buber says that “Basic words do not state something that might exist outside them,” he is gesturing toward a fundamental divide between two very different ways of understanding the status of language. For purposes of this essay, I’ll say that that distinction rests somewhere between “reflection” and “evocation.” And by that I mean that some hold that their words accurately reflect what is outside them and others hold that their words evoke meaningful perspectives that enable the contours of human life to be defined in particular ways. Let’s look at this distinction a bit more closely.

In The New Testament and the People of God, NT Wright offers an epistemological theory as a necessary prolegomenon to his overall work. He does this because he wants to defend the gospels against the charge that their value as historical documents has been fatally compromised by their theological purposes. Wright’s epistomology is fatally flawed and leads to unsustainable conclusions about history.

“I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” [Luke: 18:17] Dwelling into the sphere of sensorial and verbal thinking, the Man is unaware of the fact that the object of his perception is actually, unknown.