Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Death and language: some comments on Haussamen.

A Zucker1

  • 1Department of Philosophy, Ohio University, Athens, USA.

Death Studies
|May 7, 1998
PubMed
Summary

This study challenges Brock Haussamen's "language as forcing" theory. It argues that language does not compel belief in an afterlife; rather, human choice shapes our language about the dead and afterlife beliefs.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

I Vinacer the X-Rays.

Gaceta medica de occidente·2010
Same author

Medical ethics as therapy.

Medical humanities·2006
Same author

Analysis of laboratory data in acne patients treated with isotretinoin: is there really a need to perform routine laboratory tests?

The Journal of dermatological treatment·2002
Same author

Bribery and extortion: can restaurants help?

Science and engineering ethics·2001
Same author

Hyperbaric oxygenation upregulates rat lung Na,K-ATPase.

The European respiratory journal·1996
Same author

Chapman's reflexes: medicine or metaphysics?

The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association·1993

Area of Science:

  • Philosophy of Language
  • Cognitive Science
  • Metaphysics

Background:

  • Brock Haussamen proposes that linguistic structures inherently create belief in an afterlife.
  • Haussamen's "language as forcing" concept suggests language compels specific interpretations of death and the deceased.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate Haussamen's "language as forcing" hypothesis.
  • To demonstrate that Haussamen's arguments and evidence are insufficient to support his claims regarding language and afterlife beliefs.

Main Methods:

  • Critical analysis of Haussamen's linguistic arguments.
  • Examination of the "deep structure" of language beyond Haussamen's assumptions.
  • Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.

Main Results:

  • Haussamen's "language as forcing" theory lacks sufficient evidential support.
  • The "deep structure" of language is more complex than Haussamen's model suggests.
  • Human agency, not linguistic compulsion, underlies beliefs about the dead and the afterlife.

Conclusions:

  • Belief in an afterlife and linguistic practices concerning the deceased are products of human choice.
  • Language itself does not force or necessitate belief in an afterlife.
  • A more nuanced understanding of language's deep structure reveals the role of human volition.

Related Experiment Videos