STEPHEN UDOFIA - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by STEPHEN UDOFIA
Pinisi discretion review, Jul 30, 2020
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY-N... more This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY-NC-4.
World Journal of Education and Humanities
Preaching is a scriptural interpretation of human existence which enables a community to recogniz... more Preaching is a scriptural interpretation of human existence which enables a community to recognize God’s active presence, respond to that presence in faith through liturgical word and gesture, and beyond the liturgical assembly, through a life lived in conformity with the Gospel. Through the act of preaching, the preacher ought to reveal people’s hearts to themselves, give them the power to make judgments that liberate them, and imbue in them the confidence to face their fears with faith, hope and love. Given that young people today, (especially in this time of pandemic) are hungry and sometimes desperate for meaning in their lives, there ought to be a shift in preaching from mere scriptural interpretation to a kind of preaching which takes into consideration the concrete, existential and phenomenological realities of young people. This kind of preaching ought to assume a prophetic dimension if it is to effectively cater to young people or assure unwavering hope in this time of the ...
The mind-body problem is a perennial philosophical problem that seeks to uncover the relationship... more The mind-body problem is a perennial philosophical problem that seeks to uncover the relationship or causal interaction that exists between the corporeal and incorporeal aspects of the human person. It thrives under the assumption that the human person is made up of two distinct entities, that is, mind and body, which explains their assumed causal relation. As attractive as this may seem, not all philosophers agree to this feigned idea of interaction and bifurcation of the human person. One philosopher of note, who sorts to address this problem in the 17th century, is René Descartes. For Descartes, minds and bodies are distinct kinds of substance, where bodies are spatially extended substances (a res extensa) and minds are unexpended substances characterised primarily by thought (a res cogitans). But, if minds and bodies are radically dissimilar, how could they causally interact? This paper therefore attempts to examine the philosophical foundations of Cartesian dualism. It also art...
International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI), 2019
There is a widespread belief that language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for... more There is a widespread belief that language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for the communication of thoughts and the conception of reality. There is equally a lingering belief that language pictures or mirrors reality. Nevertheless, to what extent can we authenticate this existing opinion? Is it the case that the conglomerate of reality can be represented linguistically without any iota of defect/fallibilism? Can language mirror reality perfectly as it is, in itself? What really is the ontological status of language? What is language anyway? How does it relate to the world? How does it relate to the mind? Should our view of language influence our view of the world? Even more seriously, what is the limit of language in the herculean task of conceiving and revealing reality? Armed with the concerns highlighted above, this paper, attempts to grapple with these questions, by first seeking insights into the meaning, nature and use of language; the nature of reality; an...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
Jurnal Sosialisasi: Jurnal Hasil Pemikiran, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Keilmuan Sosiologi Pendidikan
Man, by nature, desires to live a good and happy life. But often times, the enduring quest for th... more Man, by nature, desires to live a good and happy life. But often times, the enduring quest for the blissful and delightful, eludes man. This constant questing and concurrent yearning make man restless, until his hopes and aspirations of the good or happy life, are crowned with an éclat. But, can man ever attain or realize this feat in the society? Is the idea of the good life, a mirage, a myth or reality? Even more seriously, what does the good life really entail? Is it predicated on material things, that is, on the mundane? Or is the good life, a kind of utopia, an ideal that seeks to bring to the glare of publicity, the “oughts” of life as the case may be? Since the idea of the good life is something well-defined, does it also imply that there is such a thing as the bad life? If, such exist, what would it consist of? Armed with these cogitations, this paper, attempts an expository-comparative study of the good life, its constitutive elements and its attainability in the thoughts o...
PINISI Discretion Review
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
There is a popular belief that, language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for t... more There is a popular belief that, language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for the communication of thoughts and the conception of reality. There is equally a lingering belief that, language pictures or mirrors reality. But to what extent can we authenticate this existing opinion? Is it the case that the conglomerate of reality, can be represented linguistically without any iota of defect/fallibilism? Can language mirror reality perfectly as it is, in itself? What really is the ontological status of language? What is language anyway? How does it relate to the world? How does it relate to the mind? Should our view of language influence our view of the world? Even more seriously, what is the limit of language in the herculean task of conceiving and revealing reality? Armed with the concerns highlighted above, this paper, attempts to grapple with these questions, by first seeking insights into the meaning, nature and use of language; the nature of reality; and the role of language within the context of effective representation and a veridical a fortiori conception of different ‘forms of life and states of affairs’ of reality.
Keywords: Language, Reality, Conception, Forms of life, States of affairs.
Pinisi discretion review, Jul 30, 2020
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY-N... more This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY-NC-4.
World Journal of Education and Humanities
Preaching is a scriptural interpretation of human existence which enables a community to recogniz... more Preaching is a scriptural interpretation of human existence which enables a community to recognize God’s active presence, respond to that presence in faith through liturgical word and gesture, and beyond the liturgical assembly, through a life lived in conformity with the Gospel. Through the act of preaching, the preacher ought to reveal people’s hearts to themselves, give them the power to make judgments that liberate them, and imbue in them the confidence to face their fears with faith, hope and love. Given that young people today, (especially in this time of pandemic) are hungry and sometimes desperate for meaning in their lives, there ought to be a shift in preaching from mere scriptural interpretation to a kind of preaching which takes into consideration the concrete, existential and phenomenological realities of young people. This kind of preaching ought to assume a prophetic dimension if it is to effectively cater to young people or assure unwavering hope in this time of the ...
The mind-body problem is a perennial philosophical problem that seeks to uncover the relationship... more The mind-body problem is a perennial philosophical problem that seeks to uncover the relationship or causal interaction that exists between the corporeal and incorporeal aspects of the human person. It thrives under the assumption that the human person is made up of two distinct entities, that is, mind and body, which explains their assumed causal relation. As attractive as this may seem, not all philosophers agree to this feigned idea of interaction and bifurcation of the human person. One philosopher of note, who sorts to address this problem in the 17th century, is René Descartes. For Descartes, minds and bodies are distinct kinds of substance, where bodies are spatially extended substances (a res extensa) and minds are unexpended substances characterised primarily by thought (a res cogitans). But, if minds and bodies are radically dissimilar, how could they causally interact? This paper therefore attempts to examine the philosophical foundations of Cartesian dualism. It also art...
International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI), 2019
There is a widespread belief that language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for... more There is a widespread belief that language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for the communication of thoughts and the conception of reality. There is equally a lingering belief that language pictures or mirrors reality. Nevertheless, to what extent can we authenticate this existing opinion? Is it the case that the conglomerate of reality can be represented linguistically without any iota of defect/fallibilism? Can language mirror reality perfectly as it is, in itself? What really is the ontological status of language? What is language anyway? How does it relate to the world? How does it relate to the mind? Should our view of language influence our view of the world? Even more seriously, what is the limit of language in the herculean task of conceiving and revealing reality? Armed with the concerns highlighted above, this paper, attempts to grapple with these questions, by first seeking insights into the meaning, nature and use of language; the nature of reality; an...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
Jurnal Sosialisasi: Jurnal Hasil Pemikiran, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Keilmuan Sosiologi Pendidikan
Man, by nature, desires to live a good and happy life. But often times, the enduring quest for th... more Man, by nature, desires to live a good and happy life. But often times, the enduring quest for the blissful and delightful, eludes man. This constant questing and concurrent yearning make man restless, until his hopes and aspirations of the good or happy life, are crowned with an éclat. But, can man ever attain or realize this feat in the society? Is the idea of the good life, a mirage, a myth or reality? Even more seriously, what does the good life really entail? Is it predicated on material things, that is, on the mundane? Or is the good life, a kind of utopia, an ideal that seeks to bring to the glare of publicity, the “oughts” of life as the case may be? Since the idea of the good life is something well-defined, does it also imply that there is such a thing as the bad life? If, such exist, what would it consist of? Armed with these cogitations, this paper, attempts an expository-comparative study of the good life, its constitutive elements and its attainability in the thoughts o...
PINISI Discretion Review
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science
Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between lan... more Far from being a banality or a philosophical naivety, there is a quintessential nexus between language and meaning, in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). The thrust of Derrida’s idea is that, language is chaotic and meaning is never fixed, in a way that allows us to effectively determine it (that is, meaning is unstable, undecided, provisional and ever differed). As a Poststructuralist, Derrida’s quarrel was with Logocentrism, which privileges speech over writing, and hitherto assume that, we have an idea in our minds, which our writing or speaking attempts to express. But, this, for Derrida, is not the case, for no one possesses the full significance of their words. Texts, in some sense write themselves: that is, are independent of an author or his intentions. Thus, in Derrida’s thinking, intentionality does not play quite the same role, as is traditionally conceived in the philosophy of language; our intention does not determine the meaning of what we are saying. Inste...
There is a popular belief that, language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for t... more There is a popular belief that, language is a veritable instrumentum laborat (working tool) for the communication of thoughts and the conception of reality. There is equally a lingering belief that, language pictures or mirrors reality. But to what extent can we authenticate this existing opinion? Is it the case that the conglomerate of reality, can be represented linguistically without any iota of defect/fallibilism? Can language mirror reality perfectly as it is, in itself? What really is the ontological status of language? What is language anyway? How does it relate to the world? How does it relate to the mind? Should our view of language influence our view of the world? Even more seriously, what is the limit of language in the herculean task of conceiving and revealing reality? Armed with the concerns highlighted above, this paper, attempts to grapple with these questions, by first seeking insights into the meaning, nature and use of language; the nature of reality; and the role of language within the context of effective representation and a veridical a fortiori conception of different ‘forms of life and states of affairs’ of reality.
Keywords: Language, Reality, Conception, Forms of life, States of affairs.