Appreciated the discussion yesterday on names. I found a followup artilce from Aish that talks about Kripke — though I think some of the directions the author wants to take may be slightly orthogonal to Kripke’s concerns:
https://aish.com/the-transcendent-power-of-names/
One quote that interested me:
“…the most important is the name of God, which is so significant that it has its own name, “HaShem,” which translates to “the name.” In other words, “The Name” is actually the name of the name, so we can say “the Name” instead of saying the name.”
I also appreciate the clarification in relation to my question about not writing “God” that it is out of concern that God’s name will be erased (though that leaves open some of my other questions about how all these various words in Hebrew and English function as names of God). I found a reference to that in a wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Erasing_the_name_of_God
What interested me as I was reading that was thinking particularly about the way the dash functions, as I had asked why one particularly would substitute the “o” rather than other letters (or even the whole thing). And then thinking of the dash (but this is probably a stretch) I considered whether in some sense writing “G-d” with a dash itself might be considered a preemptive erasure, so that the name of God thus written is paradoxically both not written at al all and erased, thus both reminding the user of the prohibition and skirting it.
submitted by /u/Certain_Note8661
[link] [comments]
Source: Reditt
