Abstract
Abstract
Wittgenstein’s writings on religious and magical beliefs, especially the “Lectures on Religious Belief” and “Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough” are taken to imply semantic incommensurability and inaccessibility by the Wittgensteinian Fideism and, in part, the expressivist interpretation. According to these interpretations, religious and non-religious discourses are self-contained, closed, and not intertranslatable. Wittgenstein is taken to deny mutual understanding between believers and non-believers with respect to religious and magical discourse. I argue against such interpretations and support readings by Kusch, Schroeder, and Tripodi that are optimistic of the possibility of mutual understanding. Nevertheless, there is a danger of scepticism for such optimistic readings when they refer to a special attitude that is needed to understand religious belief and speech. I offer a reply to this problem and suggest to see Wittgenstein’s stance on understanding religious discourse in a greater proximity to his general views about language in his later writings. Then, however, any fideist view of the religious (and magical) form of life as self-contained and isolated from the non-religious has to be repudiated.
Reference108 articles.
1. Anscombe, Gertrude Elisabeth Margaret: The Question of Linguistic Idealism, in: Collected Philosophical Papers, 1. From Parmenides to Wittgenstein, Oxford 1981, 112 – 33.
2. Ashdown, Lance: A Tragic Tale of Magic and Religion, in: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 56 (2004), 131 – 68.
3. Banner, Michael: The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief, Oxford 1992.
4. Barnes, Barry & David Bloor: Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge, in: Martin Hollis & Steven Lukes (eds.): Rationality and Relativism, Oxford 1982, 21 – 47.
5. Bell, Richard: Understanding the Fire-Festivals: Wittgenstein and Theories in Religion, in: Religious Studies, 14(1) (1978), 113 – 24.