Re: Truth?!?

> While Heidegger does often use the language of "prior to," to recover
> truth as unconcealing is at the same time to reject truth as
> correspondence because "truth" is part of whatever sending of being
> occurs, and recovering truth as unconcealing is meant to bring about a
> change in the sending of being. Another way of thinking about this is
> that correspondence rests on thinking being as stable or fixed (in both
> the active and passive sense of the term), while unconcealing thinks of
> being as "being moved," historical. Because both make claims about the
> truth of being, they cannot coexist.

Correspondence interprets being as presence. Unconcealing sees being as
"being moved"; but didn't Aristotle see this with energeia? "Being moved"
is the energeia of a dunamis as a dunamis. Maybe Heidegger didn't
properly appreciate Aristotle's fundamental insight, even if he could
name it (i.e. being as energeia). Oh well, at least I agree with
Heidegger that we should all be studying Aristotle for 10 or 15 years
in order to approach the task of thinking!


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Replies
Re: Truth?!?, Christopher Rickey
Partial thread listing: