No abstract

This paper argues first that, contrary to what one would expect, metaphorical interpretations of utterances pass two of Cappelan and Lepore's Minimalist tests for semantic context-sensitivity. I then propose how, in light of that result, one might analyze metaphors on the model of indexicals and demonstratives, expressions that (even) Minimalists agree are semantically context-dependent. This analysis builds on David Kaplan's semantics for demonstratives and refines an earlier proposal in (Stern, Metaphor in context, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000). In the course of this argument, I also discuss some new examples of linguistic phenomena that motivate a semantic structure underlying metaphorical interpretation, phenomena I argue that neither Minimalists nor Contextualists can explain.

Maimonides’ view of the significance of dying for God, I will argue, is his understanding of the phrase that the rabbis appropriated (at least by the Middle Ages) for dying in martyrdom scenarios—namely, “Qiddush HaShem,” literally: “Sanctification of the Name [of God].” For Maimonides, a holy life is no more but also no less than a life constituted by perfect performance of all commandments in the Mosaic Law without exception. Does this ideal allow for—indeed mandate in specific circumstances—transgressing rather than dying, especially when coerced? Or does a truly holy life require nothing less than perfect performance of all commandments allowing for no violations under any circumstances? The view that demands perfect observance of all commandments in all circumstances, I will call “holiness perfectionism.” Maimonides, I shall argue, offers a critique of this view.

No abstract

No abstract