>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:46:17 +1200
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: callihan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steven E. Callihan)
> Closer to Peirce's, I suspect. It is a form of defining logical truth, if you will, while the second assertion, that truth is that which
>conceals nothing, is much more inspired by Heidegger's notion of Aletheia. Two sides of the same coin, I feel, but two _different_
>sides. My own feeling is that both assertions are quite true. Difficult to doubt, anyway.
>
> Steve
ok, but do you think that truth as "that which conceals nothing" is the same as truth being a revealing?
If we consider art and truth (via some form of Heideggerean standpoint), is not truth something fluid and
impossible to hold onto for any length of time?
Can this revealing, fleeting or otherwise, really be a non-concealing, as "that which conceals nothing" does not go towards truth as
process of revealing rather than as product?
Ie was your/Peirce's definition of truth more definite product than fluid/ambiguous process?
Is Heidegger's more process than product?
Even if the same coin?
Thanks for the answer, I hope my further question above is appropriate.
NB Can I even talk of truth as ambiguous truth or am I contradicting myself?
I guess I am.
PS Someone said that one can defend Anthropomorhpic truth-is this Heidegger? is this valid? Can truth be naything other than
anthropomorphic or do those that deifine truth as mathematical truth (objective etc) believe that it exists independently of them and
anything they might believe and that any coreespondence to their own viewpoint is neither here nor there?
Regards,
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: callihan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steven E. Callihan)
> Closer to Peirce's, I suspect. It is a form of defining logical truth, if you will, while the second assertion, that truth is that which
>conceals nothing, is much more inspired by Heidegger's notion of Aletheia. Two sides of the same coin, I feel, but two _different_
>sides. My own feeling is that both assertions are quite true. Difficult to doubt, anyway.
>
> Steve
ok, but do you think that truth as "that which conceals nothing" is the same as truth being a revealing?
If we consider art and truth (via some form of Heideggerean standpoint), is not truth something fluid and
impossible to hold onto for any length of time?
Can this revealing, fleeting or otherwise, really be a non-concealing, as "that which conceals nothing" does not go towards truth as
process of revealing rather than as product?
Ie was your/Peirce's definition of truth more definite product than fluid/ambiguous process?
Is Heidegger's more process than product?
Even if the same coin?
Thanks for the answer, I hope my further question above is appropriate.
NB Can I even talk of truth as ambiguous truth or am I contradicting myself?
I guess I am.
PS Someone said that one can defend Anthropomorhpic truth-is this Heidegger? is this valid? Can truth be naything other than
anthropomorphic or do those that deifine truth as mathematical truth (objective etc) believe that it exists independently of them and
anything they might believe and that any coreespondence to their own viewpoint is neither here nor there?
Regards,
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---