>Would you say literal truth is the primary sense of truth?=20
>
>I think the question is related to this one: Is energeia higher than =
dunamis?
"No. I don't think however that you can disconnect or disassociate the =
idea
of "truth" from logic (or the _logos_, if you will), without cancelling =
the
idea altogether. An interesting reflection on this has to do with the
contrast between logical and poetic truth. Poetic truth is not _simply_
illogical--if it were, it would be gibberish. So, poetic truth makes =
sense
by means of counterpoising itself against the literal truth, if you =
will,
but in doing so confirms the necessity of such a truth, at least as a =
base
or ground for other kinds of truths to react off of."
Yes, I agree. I was thinking that this status as a "base or ground" is =
what makes it "primary".
"I'm not up enough right now on Aristotle to comment on energeia vs. =
dynamis.
You have to figure physis and kinesis into that as well, right? Maybe =
you
can refresh my understanding by summarizing what you see as being the =
root
issue here, vis a vis the question of truth."
On this issue, I am in aporia and reaching out for those who know. I'm =
trying to understand it myself, my intuition being that here Heidegger =
has gone wrong. I hope this response doesn't disappoint you... I know I =
can sound like a know-it-all! But I'm still working on this one...
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>I think the question is related to this one: Is energeia higher than =
dunamis?
"No. I don't think however that you can disconnect or disassociate the =
idea
of "truth" from logic (or the _logos_, if you will), without cancelling =
the
idea altogether. An interesting reflection on this has to do with the
contrast between logical and poetic truth. Poetic truth is not _simply_
illogical--if it were, it would be gibberish. So, poetic truth makes =
sense
by means of counterpoising itself against the literal truth, if you =
will,
but in doing so confirms the necessity of such a truth, at least as a =
base
or ground for other kinds of truths to react off of."
Yes, I agree. I was thinking that this status as a "base or ground" is =
what makes it "primary".
"I'm not up enough right now on Aristotle to comment on energeia vs. =
dynamis.
You have to figure physis and kinesis into that as well, right? Maybe =
you
can refresh my understanding by summarizing what you see as being the =
root
issue here, vis a vis the question of truth."
On this issue, I am in aporia and reaching out for those who know. I'm =
trying to understand it myself, my intuition being that here Heidegger =
has gone wrong. I hope this response doesn't disappoint you... I know I =
can sound like a know-it-all! But I'm still working on this one...
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---