---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 14:17:00 PDT
From: "Staples, Michael" <MStaples@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: owner-heidegger <owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Truth?!?
So now we have come full circle, no? We are back to defining truth as either
relative or absolute. This was where my original questions that has sparked
so many wonderful replys came on the scene. Heidegger is held up as
supplying an alternative to this either/or scenario (by Dreyfus). Where I
chimed in was in wondering where the this alternative gets us. If it just
leads back around in a big circle to... either subjective realism, or some
sort of absolute notion of truth, then what has been gained?
Michael S.
----------
From: owner-heidegger
To: heidegger
Cc: heidegger
Subject: Re: Truth?!?
Date: Thursday, September 12, 1996 11:58AM
> >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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---