Truth can only be 'relative' given the expectation for the absolute.
Yes, it is difficult to envision an alternative to metaphysical
realism vs. idealism; this dichotomy has dominated several centuries
of our history. But precipitously subsuming everything back into
this dichotomy threatens to preemptively delegitimate the attempt
(to articulate a sensible alternative, a middle path).
This is where Dreyfus's efforts deserve careful treatment; did you
read his work explicating Heidegger's hermeneutic or plural realism?
As to what it will get us... This is a political or pragmatic
rather than philosophical question (strange from someone who is
searching for truth--but perhaps not so strange from someone who
thinks they already have the truth about truth, and thus find
alternatives threatening), but one answer would be: look e.g. at
the work Dreyfus has done since then. (He has a major book coming
out soon on what he calls "multiple worlds" or "polytheism," and it
clearly speaks out of the issues which have been raised here.).
Iain
>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 ?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Yes, it is difficult to envision an alternative to metaphysical
realism vs. idealism; this dichotomy has dominated several centuries
of our history. But precipitously subsuming everything back into
this dichotomy threatens to preemptively delegitimate the attempt
(to articulate a sensible alternative, a middle path).
This is where Dreyfus's efforts deserve careful treatment; did you
read his work explicating Heidegger's hermeneutic or plural realism?
As to what it will get us... This is a political or pragmatic
rather than philosophical question (strange from someone who is
searching for truth--but perhaps not so strange from someone who
thinks they already have the truth about truth, and thus find
alternatives threatening), but one answer would be: look e.g. at
the work Dreyfus has done since then. (He has a major book coming
out soon on what he calls "multiple worlds" or "polytheism," and it
clearly speaks out of the issues which have been raised here.).
Iain
>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 ?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---