Coming out from under the deluge of Mr. Morrissey's posts...
I would like to briefly add to this discussion the distinction Heidegger
deploys in a number of his post-war writings: namely, the distinction
between correctness and truth. A famous example is the opening to "Question
Concerning Technology", wherein the instrumental-anthropological definition
of technology is labelled 'correct', but not 'true', insofar as truth
pertains to essenc(ing) (Wesen understood verbally), on the basis of which
H. claims that "the essence of technology is nothing technological". This
distinction is, perhaps, a very Hegelian one (see the Vorrede to Ph.G);
what is 'correct' is not entirely false, it is only 'one-sided',
complacently adhering to the (distorted or dissembled) surface of what is
apparently self-evident. The task of thinking (if not of philosophy) is to
call the 'correct' into question, in order to let the essence of truth
(which is also the truth of essence) come forth, such that thinking can
render more explicit the truth which has (always already) appropriated it.
The more suspicious amongst us might argue that Heidegger says 'correct'
with a sneer, in a pejorative tone of voice; this, I think, is a
misunderstanding.
Addendum: Mr. Morrissey: so far you've declared that Heidegger is wrong
about truth, the history of being, time, and the Nothing. Is there anything
left?
Cheers,
Paul Murphy
University of Toronto
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
I would like to briefly add to this discussion the distinction Heidegger
deploys in a number of his post-war writings: namely, the distinction
between correctness and truth. A famous example is the opening to "Question
Concerning Technology", wherein the instrumental-anthropological definition
of technology is labelled 'correct', but not 'true', insofar as truth
pertains to essenc(ing) (Wesen understood verbally), on the basis of which
H. claims that "the essence of technology is nothing technological". This
distinction is, perhaps, a very Hegelian one (see the Vorrede to Ph.G);
what is 'correct' is not entirely false, it is only 'one-sided',
complacently adhering to the (distorted or dissembled) surface of what is
apparently self-evident. The task of thinking (if not of philosophy) is to
call the 'correct' into question, in order to let the essence of truth
(which is also the truth of essence) come forth, such that thinking can
render more explicit the truth which has (always already) appropriated it.
The more suspicious amongst us might argue that Heidegger says 'correct'
with a sneer, in a pejorative tone of voice; this, I think, is a
misunderstanding.
Addendum: Mr. Morrissey: so far you've declared that Heidegger is wrong
about truth, the history of being, time, and the Nothing. Is there anything
left?
Cheers,
Paul Murphy
University of Toronto
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---