Kurt Gödel is well-known as a first-class logician-mathematician, but less well for his proof of God. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems proved that all formal axiomatic systems have inherent limitations. He created also “Gödel numbering,” a special code for writing mathematical formulae. His proof of God was presented logically on the basis of modal axioms. Gödel was sure of God’s personal influence and believed in eternal life of the human soul. He was more than only a “Baptized Lutheran” whose belief was “theistic.” (...) Yet Gödel’s individual assurance of God’s “personal existence“ cannot be viably presented on an interpersonal basis being a “first-person“ type of knowledge and, thus, outside interpersonal conditions for an objective construction beyond a “verbal proof.“ There are categories of reality not easily translatable without a shift in their meaning or a simplifying reduction. The metaphor of an analogy between the brain and its mind as against a computer’s hard- and software does not adequately consider the polarity between the message and its meaning. Gödel’s God was not a modally conceived formal-logical abbreviation of something unattainable for the believer, but a personal Security which does not require any proof. (shrink)

At the end of the second millennium, we seem to be somewhat nervous agairn. Twentieth-century scientific developments have opened up fascinating new fields of study both in the micro- and macrocosmos. Yet none of the new codes, paradigms, and ideologies appear to bring us nearer to some new and generally shared creed. Life without work for many, not only in the Third World, the successful integration of Europe, armed conflicts on local battlefields, as well as superficialities on TV screens, are (...) our near-to-be contemporaneity. The seeming unlimited technical possibilities of artificial intelligence, the relativtatim of civic values, and a cartoon-like culture portend risks for the fiiture. Yet, while secular and lacking a binding sense of responsibility, postmodem society epitomizes spiritual hunger. Nurtured by good family traditions, the spiritual quest promises an open-ended, post-Godotian future. (shrink)

In his initial dissertation the author asked the question of "naturalizibility" of self-conscience; in the following book he has already criticized "naturalism" as a defect idiom. He takes language as a tool of his critical strategy. He refers to the paradox of the anthropomorphic understanding of nature and the physiomorphic self-understanding of man. There are three main parts in the book. First, various naturalist strategies, starting with American Naturalism, are exposed. Human language has been characterized as an unconventional means of (...) description of natural and factual contents. Three areas, or "paradigms," have been found exemplary for the "naturalism at work", evolutionary theory, psychoanalysis, and cybernetics. The next part centers in two chapters on the "language dualism" where there is a concept tension caused by the spirit-body problem and the two universes of discourse, in accord with the ideals of naturalism, should not be ontologically substantiated. In accord with the fundamental theory, one can assert a mentalist or a physicalist discourse, the language of action or of occurrence, or also the intentionalist or mechanist idiom. The third main block of exposition analyses the two basic types of metaphors, namely, the anthropomorphic and the physiomorphic. Before starting his survey of five metaphor theories, Keil expressly rejects the Iconic Signification Theory. He is sure metaphors are hyper-conceptual elements of language. Two of the theories present more virtues than defects, the Theory of Interaction and the pragmatist Theory of Indirect Communication. At the end of these reflections the author confronts the metaphor of man as a machine with teleology and, on the other hand, thinks of problems linked with the human spirit as a computer metaphor. Two chapters form the finale of the book. In accord with Keil the concept of nature in the natural sciences seems to have died out resulting in "naturalism" becoming a conceptually unclear term. Another problem is causality, for the "propter hoc" is not unfolded in the world of bodies. Relations, including causal ones, are abstract entities. The notion of causality in nature cannot be counted as an intentional concept but, at the same time, causal theories of knowledge and action cannot serve to naturalize intentionality. (shrink)

Terms do not always cover the same meaning all the time. While translating into another language we have to take care of possible shifts in meaning in each of both languages. Some examples have been shown here from the new translation of Locke‘s Essay into Czech.