One can simply maintain that in Jesus the initial aim that God contributed was at each and every moment to be his Son, or, in
more philosophical language, to realize the divinity at every occasion in the series.
But as Vivekananda has maintained, the two are ethically the same; only the Hindu system of ethics uses, not the personalist but
the more philosophical language.
We speak of the living God to stress what in
more philosophical language is called a personal God — one who loves and cares, who thinks and wills, who created the world and who continuously acts within it.
Not exact matches
This is remarkably personalistic
language, and it is interesting to note that it all occurs in the
more philosophical part of the book rather than where he is surveying the evidence of religious experience.
When I reflect on the infinite pains to which the human mind and heart will go in order to protect itself from the full impact of reality, when I recall the mordant analyses of religious belief which stem from the works of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and, furthermore, recognize the truth of so much of what these critics of religion have had to say, when I engage in a
philosophical critique of the
language of theology and am constrained to admit that it is a continual attempt to say what can not properly be said and am thereby led to wonder whether its claim to cognition can possibly be valid — when I ask these questions of myself and others like them (as I can not help asking and, what is
more, feel obliged to ask), is not the conclusion forced upon me that my faith is a delusion?
The current
language debate is just one
more indicator of how much the church lost when it got caught up in the
philosophical / theological Christology debates, and replaced the name of Jesus with the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
While his
philosophical views would seem to underwrite a notion of privacy and seclusion, there is no
more public figure to be found in contemporary English -
language philosophy.
To put this another way: Taylor's «suspicion» of doctrine or,
more generally, of speculative
philosophical systems is not about the inability of
language to express the truth of life.
Of the
more recent
philosophical investigations of
language, there are, in the main, two approaches.
So the first conclusion is that [i] even if [/ i] one follows Aquinas in his analysis of analogy, or
more specifically, analogical
language, as a
philosophical tool for interpreting «God -
language,» it does not follow that it says anything about [i] being, [/ i] as such, about God's being in particular, and even less does it tell us anything about how God's being might be [i] pictured [/ i].
In this way it was quite different from Greek
language which preferred a
more philosophical literary form to interpret Jesus» relation to God.