Jud:
> For me 'entity + language = truth' is not acceptable. Just think of Blair's
> statement about the so-called 'entities' of mass destruction, and the
> 'language' he used to describe their existence, in which he included the
'fact' that
> they could be launched within 15-minutes. All falsity, and all 'entity +
> language' that equalled misrepresentation. For me then only 'entity= truth is
> relevant, and THAT is precisely the reason for my battles with the
> transcendentalists, because their notion of an 'entity' is so primitive and
slippery
> [abstract objects and so on] it obscures truth — and my small side-show of
a
> battle is ultimately about the meaning of truth.
So, Jud, truth for you is the revelation, showing or uncovering (pebble in
the hand, there!) of beings in the manner of the way that such beings are
(physically for physical beings, non-physical for non-physical beings,
humanly for human beings, etc), and not primarily a property of statements
concerning such beings (as you say "'entity + language = truth' is not
acceptable" and "only 'entity= truth is relevant, and THAT is precisely the
reason for my battles with the transcendentalists"). Thus far (apart from
quibbles concerning what entities "actually" are (what constitutes
"existence" or "existents"/"entities" etc), what counts as "actual") you and
Heidegger would be on the same ground since what you say above is a crude
version of the phenomenological critique of reason ushered in by Heidegger
when he claims that aletheia is not 'truth' (as customarily given as
statements and propositions corresponding (correctly or incorrectly) to
states of affairs) but the very un-concealing (a-letheia) itself of such
states of affairs (beings) -- the pebble, there!, in the hand; the artwork
staying the fourfold of erath/sky/mortal/immortal; the polis site-ing the
stay of humans; the electron revealed in its traces and tracks formed in
re-action with the material environment of the experimental setup; etc. The
difference is that Heidegger understands that such unconcealing largely
takes place in language (or something like it...) and that the very
unconcealing that happens in language is also beset by a concealing and
obscuration due to the very bewaying of language itself; whereas your kind
of thinking (revealing of truth) wants to (but can not) see through the
obscurations of language, to make it transparent so that the "entity" shows
through, despite the fact that language in its opacity (density of words and
connotation, etc) is completely necessary for such revelation (look, the
pebble!). In a way, your kind of thinking wants to see through the
linguistic screen that reveals entities to the entities themselves but can
only accomplish this through that very employment of language and thus the
screen (as the above attests). In that sense, your "side-show" battle is
with your(philosophical)self (and thus should take centre stage).
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> For me 'entity + language = truth' is not acceptable. Just think of Blair's
> statement about the so-called 'entities' of mass destruction, and the
> 'language' he used to describe their existence, in which he included the
'fact' that
> they could be launched within 15-minutes. All falsity, and all 'entity +
> language' that equalled misrepresentation. For me then only 'entity= truth is
> relevant, and THAT is precisely the reason for my battles with the
> transcendentalists, because their notion of an 'entity' is so primitive and
slippery
> [abstract objects and so on] it obscures truth — and my small side-show of
a
> battle is ultimately about the meaning of truth.
So, Jud, truth for you is the revelation, showing or uncovering (pebble in
the hand, there!) of beings in the manner of the way that such beings are
(physically for physical beings, non-physical for non-physical beings,
humanly for human beings, etc), and not primarily a property of statements
concerning such beings (as you say "'entity + language = truth' is not
acceptable" and "only 'entity= truth is relevant, and THAT is precisely the
reason for my battles with the transcendentalists"). Thus far (apart from
quibbles concerning what entities "actually" are (what constitutes
"existence" or "existents"/"entities" etc), what counts as "actual") you and
Heidegger would be on the same ground since what you say above is a crude
version of the phenomenological critique of reason ushered in by Heidegger
when he claims that aletheia is not 'truth' (as customarily given as
statements and propositions corresponding (correctly or incorrectly) to
states of affairs) but the very un-concealing (a-letheia) itself of such
states of affairs (beings) -- the pebble, there!, in the hand; the artwork
staying the fourfold of erath/sky/mortal/immortal; the polis site-ing the
stay of humans; the electron revealed in its traces and tracks formed in
re-action with the material environment of the experimental setup; etc. The
difference is that Heidegger understands that such unconcealing largely
takes place in language (or something like it...) and that the very
unconcealing that happens in language is also beset by a concealing and
obscuration due to the very bewaying of language itself; whereas your kind
of thinking (revealing of truth) wants to (but can not) see through the
obscurations of language, to make it transparent so that the "entity" shows
through, despite the fact that language in its opacity (density of words and
connotation, etc) is completely necessary for such revelation (look, the
pebble!). In a way, your kind of thinking wants to see through the
linguistic screen that reveals entities to the entities themselves but can
only accomplish this through that very employment of language and thus the
screen (as the above attests). In that sense, your "side-show" battle is
with your(philosophical)self (and thus should take centre stage).
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---