> >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.
So what is historically relative? Our understanding of truth? Or truth
itself? It seems you are equating the two. I don't. I still deny truth
is historical the way Heidegger formulates it. I take it you believe what
Heidegger says about truth?
--- 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.
So what is historically relative? Our understanding of truth? Or truth
itself? It seems you are equating the two. I don't. I still deny truth
is historical the way Heidegger formulates it. I take it you believe what
Heidegger says about truth?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---