So I was thinking the other day about Jay-Z's song "Empire State of Mind" and all the controversy it caused in the Christian community. For example, there is a video which castigates Jay-Z for "dissing" Jesus Christ. Many people were appalled that Jay could just flip his lid and start talking crazy.
The lines in question say:
Mommy took a bus trip/ Now she got her bust out/ Everybody ride her/ Just like a bus route/ Hail Mary to the city/ You're a virgin/ And Jesus can't save you/ Life starts when the Church ends
It seems pretty clear that Jay-Z is denying one of the core beliefs of the Christian faith. He is saying that Jesus is not capable of saving us and that real life happens outside of church. But while I think Jay's critics are on to something here, I want to suggest a way to defend Jay-Z's statements. I want to propose that Jay might not be as crazy as his critics make him appear.
One of the most popular theories for how proper names relate to their subjects is called the descriptive theory of proper names. On this theory―a theory developed by Bertrand Russell―proper names refer to the person who satisfies a set of definite descriptions. Definite Descriptions are phrases like those found in definitions. For example, if I asked you who is Jay-Z, you might respond, "he is―'the writer of the above lyrics,' 'one of the founders of Roc-a-fella Records,' 'the owner of 40/40 club,' 'Beyonce's husband,' 'one of the greatest MCs of all time,' etc." The list of definite descriptions needed to describe him is practically infinite so to simplify things, we just call him 'Jay-Z.' Another way of looking at it is, proper names stand in the place of a list of definite descriptions and refer to the person who fits those descriptions.
Now what about Jay-Z's statement about Jesus? I think one could argue that it is plausible that the definite descriptions Jay-Z attributes to the proper name 'Jesus' might be descriptions which make his lyrics true (if there was a person in history who fits Jay-Z's list). For example, let's agree with Anselm that only a being that is both God and human is capable of satisfying God's justice and thereby provide salvation for all humanity. Second, let's say that Jay-Z does not believe that Jesus is divine. He believers that Jesus was merely a good human being. Jesus was only one of God's prophets. Then it follows that Jay-Z shouldn't believe that Jesus is capable of saving us. In other words, if Jay-Z does not have "Jesus is the God-man" as one of his definite descriptions, then he could logically believe that Jesus couldn't save us. So when Jay stands on stage and says, “Jesus can’t save you,” he is right. The Jesus in his mind is not capable of saving us.
Now the next question would be, "Is it reasonable for me to believe that Jay-Z could fail to have 'Jesus is the God-man' (or any of the other necessary and sufficient conditions for Jesus to be savior) as one his definite descriptions"? I would answer yes. Given the weak education programs at many churches, it wouldn't surprise me that someone like Jay-Z could reject many of the truths of the Christian faith. As a Church, we have done a very poor job of communicating what it is we believe and why it is we believe what we do. I have had ministers, deacons and elders argue with me that while the Bible does claim that Jesus is the Son of God, it does not claim that Jesus is God. These are the leaders who are supposed to be feeding the flock. If the leaders don't have the necessary definite descriptions, then it makes sense why someone like Jay-Z wouldn't have them either.
So, I don’t believe that Jay-Z is crazy or has lost his mind or any of the other claims made about him. I simply believe that Jay-Z is wrong in his beliefs about who Jesus was.
1. As a Mutha-Honkah, I am not quite hip to certain facts. So, does Jay-Z claim to be a Christian? If not, then it doesn't seem that any of this really matters, right?
ReplyDelete2. Now for the philosophy, can one have a different set of definite descriptions and refer to the same 'simple symbol' as someone else. In other words, just because we both use the designation [not in the Kripkean sense] 'Jesus', does we necessarily refer to the same thing. How many of our definite descriptions must overlap for us to be referring to the same thing?
For example, if I listed 100 definite descriptions of you that were all true except one - "the white guy from Atlanta" - would I still be referring to you?
I guess that's my question: Are you claiming that Jay-Z is not even referring to the same Jesus?
3. Do you think that Jay-Z is employing a de re or de dicto modality in his song? It seems that if it is merely de dicto, then one could argue that his song is asserting possible propositions. It is logically possible that Jesus cannot save; it is just that Christians believe that it is not the actual state of affairs. I'm only concerend if he is employing de re modality because then he is actually speaking about Jesus himself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpicher,
ReplyDelete1. To be honest, (I was going to lie to you) I have no idea what Jay-Z's religious beliefs are. I was just trying to think of a defense if he did claim to be a Christian or to have orthodox views of Christ. It's just a blog man!
2. The problem of how many definite descriptions one must have to be referring to the same object is a big problem with this view. Both Russell and Frege seem to think that there is an essential set of descriptions that one must have in order to be talking about the same object. I'm not sure who gets to decide which ones are necessary and which ones are not. Kripke attempts to address this problem by having the community "baptize" the designation and sticking it to the object, making it rigid. Therefore the rigid designator doesn't change even if the other descriptions (i.e. white guy from Atlanta) might change or be wrong given some other state of affairs. I lean toward Kripkean on this point. On Russell's view, however, I think one could argue that Jay-Z's conception of Jesus, if it lacks certain descriptions, would be a different person (i.e. Jebus) though the description used by both persons is the same.
3. I've never heard those terms before so I can't answer that. Just kidding. I think he is employing de re modality. He is claiming that Jesus is lacking the essential properties that would allow him to save us. But there is another possible interpretation here. Jay-Z could believe that the state of the woman is such that she cannot be saved (i.e. reprobate mind). I don't think Jay-Z thought it about this song that much though.
Lastly, is Jay-Z reading this blog?
ReplyDeleteIf so, hello.
I agree, so far as I remember Russell's view, that definite descriptions has some issues.
You thought it was impressive to have Jay-Z and Russell, but 'I answer that' it was even more impressive to bring in de re and de dicto modality!!
I prefer the definite description "the white guy from Hotlanta."
I do hope Jigga Man is reading this blog.
ReplyDeleteWhat up, Jigga?
And you do win for bringing in de dicto and de re modality. That's pretty hot!
And I own you a slap in the head for the Hotlanta crap.
You 'own' a slap???
ReplyDeleteSince you ignored the last question, I'll ask another one.
ReplyDeleteIs 'Jigga' the slang version of 'jigger'?
If yes, then is a 'jigga man' one who mixes drinks at a bar or coffee shop?
You need help!
ReplyDelete