>From: Chris Morrissey
.....> But his assaults on metaphysics are refreshing and a s
> imulus to think the matter itself for ourselves.)
That's what I thought Michael was saying?
By the by, after the illuminating (at least for me) talk about rhetoric, others
seem to be using it in the more contemporaneous sense again, as persuasion/
oratory per se etc. Deliberate reversion?
Can one be sympathetic to both sides, to mathematical /analytical rigour; and to the poetic expression
of metaphor be it Kantian, Nietzschean, Heideggerean or otherwise?
One might well ask: what do we want from the notion of truth, and how must it satisfy such conditions?
Is it the correspondence theory, or is it some form of personal heimlichkeit, of attunement to one's world,
for after all, the world of self is not created by mathematical proofs?
Neanderthals did not know of Cartesian proofs, of our (via Kant) "rational vocation", or of the a priori.
Yet some prospered (at least till 10 000 years ago).
Cave people survived through language, through the transmission of abstracted thoughts, concepts, through communication of
trapping and stalking strategies.
Not through calculus.
We might need trig or the Doppler effect to travel to other planets, but do we need self-affirmed knowledge of mathenatical
truth (truth independent of us) to survive?
If Heidegger looked at technology and said there was so much potential, yet all that power does is trap us and our worlds as
means rather than ends-need he be denying maths or progress? Not rather blind unthinking faith in progress without
consideration of the consequences?
If truth only has meaning independent of us, I question the validity of even discussing it.
Yet I am not suggesting an argument for the title above.
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
.....> But his assaults on metaphysics are refreshing and a s
> imulus to think the matter itself for ourselves.)
That's what I thought Michael was saying?
By the by, after the illuminating (at least for me) talk about rhetoric, others
seem to be using it in the more contemporaneous sense again, as persuasion/
oratory per se etc. Deliberate reversion?
Can one be sympathetic to both sides, to mathematical /analytical rigour; and to the poetic expression
of metaphor be it Kantian, Nietzschean, Heideggerean or otherwise?
One might well ask: what do we want from the notion of truth, and how must it satisfy such conditions?
Is it the correspondence theory, or is it some form of personal heimlichkeit, of attunement to one's world,
for after all, the world of self is not created by mathematical proofs?
Neanderthals did not know of Cartesian proofs, of our (via Kant) "rational vocation", or of the a priori.
Yet some prospered (at least till 10 000 years ago).
Cave people survived through language, through the transmission of abstracted thoughts, concepts, through communication of
trapping and stalking strategies.
Not through calculus.
We might need trig or the Doppler effect to travel to other planets, but do we need self-affirmed knowledge of mathenatical
truth (truth independent of us) to survive?
If Heidegger looked at technology and said there was so much potential, yet all that power does is trap us and our worlds as
means rather than ends-need he be denying maths or progress? Not rather blind unthinking faith in progress without
consideration of the consequences?
If truth only has meaning independent of us, I question the validity of even discussing it.
Yet I am not suggesting an argument for the title above.
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---