On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Anthony F. Beavers wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> Brad has suggested to me in a private post that the passage must mean
> that the thing comports itself toward Dasein, though it cannot be
> revealed without the corresponding proposition, which manifests the
> thing. (I hope I am getting that right, Brad.) This response seems a
> little more determinative than yours below, but I believe it does not
> contradict your position. Am I right in thinking this?
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
I would say that this interpretation of the passage is definitely
wrong. It seems to me to be the case that Heidegger is concerned above
all to detach the essence of truth from the proposition (at least in
terms of its deeper grounds). If there were the kind of codependency
suggested, I don't think that Heidegger would have written a few
paragraphs later: "But if the correctness (truth) of statements becomes
possible only through this openness of comportment, then what first makes
correctness possible must with more original right be taken as the
essence of truth."
I believe that here and in B&T s. 44, Heidegger is asserting that
truth is not just found in statements, but it is more fundamentally in
the comportment itself. This is why a work of art, for instance, can be
"true". On a more mundane level, every appropriate response to a
situation (such as dropping one hammer that is too heavy and picking up
another) has its own kind of truth, without us ever expressing or even
thinking a proposition.
Martin Weatherston
East Stroudsburg University
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------