>To call Truth "what we have never had" begs the question.
Yes, but what I said we'd never had was not truth per se, but a
non-historically relative understanding of truth. Truth, to restate
the central point which you explicitly denied and now drop, has a
history.
This still leaves room for (what Dreyfus calls) a 'hermeneutic
realism.' Truth is always relative to a historical clearing. I
would suggest reading Dreyfus's "Heidegger's Hermeneutic Realism"
(and the piece by Kuhn to which it responds) in Hiley, ed., _The
Interpretive Turn_, (Cornell, 1991). And on the first point above,
Geertz's "Anti anti-relativism," in _Relativism_ (Notre Dame, 1989).
Iain
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Yes, but what I said we'd never had was not truth per se, but a
non-historically relative understanding of truth. Truth, to restate
the central point which you explicitly denied and now drop, has a
history.
This still leaves room for (what Dreyfus calls) a 'hermeneutic
realism.' Truth is always relative to a historical clearing. I
would suggest reading Dreyfus's "Heidegger's Hermeneutic Realism"
(and the piece by Kuhn to which it responds) in Hiley, ed., _The
Interpretive Turn_, (Cornell, 1991). And on the first point above,
Geertz's "Anti anti-relativism," in _Relativism_ (Notre Dame, 1989).
Iain
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---