Re: Truth?!?

> OK, please elaborate. Don't mean to be impolite or presumptious.
> Instincts of a harried teaching assistant.

Cool. I'll try and pick some stuff out of "On the Essence of Truth" that
I have trouble with.

> If it is a relativism, albeit a complex one (which I still think is
> debatable), the question perhaps should be posed, "is it worth anything"
> compared to, say, a dogmatic positivism or some other such ahistorical
> foundationalism? What standard determines 'worth' here?
> (Sorry for the brevity, my dial-in time is running out...)

Heidegger beats every other philosophical option offered in this century.
No question. He's the man to be dealt with. But I'm trying to take a
millenial view. Maybe there's something Heidegger overlooked or
misunderstood in his historical studies.

Somehow I feel that Heidegger's radical historicism
preempts dialogue with any other thinkers; they just get "interpreted"
and his spin on them silences them. It's tough to argue with Heidegger
because there's something about his philosophy that makes him immune to
criticism.


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Folow-ups
  • Re: Truth?!?
    • From: Tom Blancato
  • RE: Truth?!?
    • From: Christopher Stewart Morrissey
  • Replies
    Re: Truth?!?, Paul Murphy
    Partial thread listing: