This article deals with the relationship between simple, monadic, divine words and the words of men linked to corporeity, devoid of clarity and univocity. For the divine word to be grasped by men a kind of transformation is necessary. One can hypothesize the existence of an archetypal, primordial language, in imitation of the essence of things. It is the language of Adam: given the perfection of a still pure soul, not affected by infirmity, illness or passion, the progenitor seized immediate impressions, grasped the meaning of things whose natures could be enunciated and thought at the same time. It is the original perfect language and is perhaps common to humans and animals if in the Garden of Eden the words of the serpent were understood by Eve. A distinction is drawn between the language of Adam, mimetic of the language of God and the mosaic language in which we have the translation of the divine word in human language. This, despite that, for Moses too it is said that the names correspond to the description of things. A further passage takes place with the passing from one language into another. God addresses different kinds of communication to different people according to their capacities. It is a “translation” of a noetic language that can speak monadically – and it is the case of communication to Moses – or assume the form of names and verbs proper to human language –and it is what happens with the Septuagint, translators like Aron.
Keywords corporeity  divine voice  monad  noetic language  original language
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.14195/1984-249x_27_8
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,481
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Mind and Language in Philo.David G. Robertson - 2006 - Journal of the History of Ideas 67 (3):423-441.
Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World. [REVIEW]A. H. Armstrong - 1989 - The Classical Review 39 (2):401-401.
Filone di Alessandria.Roberto Radice - 1985 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 90 (2):278-278.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Heidegger on Language in the "Holderlin and the Essence of Poetry".Marzieh Piravi Vanak - 2010 - Journal of Philosophical Investigations at University of Tabriz 4 (219):1-16.
Plato's Theory of Language.Morriss Henry Partee - 1972 - Foundations of Language 8 (1):113-132.
Is Berkeley's World a Divine Language?James P. Danaher - 2002 - Modern Theology 18 (3):361-373.
A New Discourse on Xunzi's Philosophy of Language.Chuanhua Peng - 2011 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (2):193-216.
Plato's Philosophy of Language as Visualized in "The Cratylus".Wing Off - 1999 - Philosophy and Culture 26 (3):194-209.
Real Language.Jesús Gerardo Martínez del Castillo - 2016 - Education and Linguistics Research 2 (1):40-53.
Poetic Language: Heidegger and Us.Jun Wang - 2016 - Philosophy Study 6 (8).


Added to PP index

Total views
4 ( #1,241,814 of 2,446,246 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #456,806 of 2,446,246 )

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes