God-Talk: Complementarity of Tashkiki Religious Language and Metaphorism

In the present study, the possibility of complementarity of the Tashkiki religious language and the cognitive account of Metaphorism in response to the God-Talk problem in the philosophy of religious language has been proposed and defended as a suggestion. At first, the article starts with addressing two primary and paradoxical responses to the problem, namely, assenting cognitivism on the one hand, and God's transcendence on the other hand. Then, it explains and formulates what might be called the Tashkiki religious language response of Sadr al-Muta'allehin to this paradoxical situation. In Sadra's response, which is based on his modulation of the Being Idea (Tashkik al-wujud), the two basics, ‘univocality’ and ‘plurality and difference’, are simultaneously preserved. Theological and anthropological predications are univocal and common in meaning, but the way these predications are applied to examples is different.In the next step, we point out an explanatory defect (in terms of philosophical linguistics) in this answer. Although Sadra's answer seems ontologically perfect, it does not offer a precise solution to transmitting propositions from a purely epistemological human context to the divine context. However, Sadra himself offered some supernatural solutions in order to immediately understand the facts. However, this solution is not purely epistemological, as not all human beings can do it and therefore do not understand the intended meanings.The specific suggestion of the study for solving the mentioned defect is that by using contemporary metaphorical studies that emphasize the cognitive character of metaphors, steps can be taken to eliminate this defect. To do this, first, cognitive metaphors have been formulated according to Paul Ricoeur. According to Ricoeur's view, metaphors are cognitive. Secondly, contrary to the first perception of metaphors, they are not limited to words; rather, they are creative issues, and new knowledge will be gained through semantic shaking and tension.In the next step, we have argued that, despite what may seem in the wind, these two views are compatible and consistent, and the commonalities of the two views have been stated as two incompatible views can never be complementary. Secondly, it suggests that we can look at complementary views in response to the God-talk problem. Then, we have suggested that in these two ideas (i.e. Ricoeur's view and Sadra's view), one can look at two complementary things in response to the God-Talk problem. Finally, we discuss some of the consequences of this proposal.