Re: Clarity

Daniel Wrote:

> I agree.   But firstly, I still hold that the reason why these
> expressions
> do not work is because they produce absurdities of language.   And
> this is
> a kind of faithlessness with language.  E.g.  It is not the chair that
> one
> defines, but the meaning of chair.    Secondly, it is not that
> validation,
> proof, etc., have no place in Heidegger, but because Heidegger thinks
> that
> they have been used to usurp the place of truth and even masquerade
> for it.
>  Thus truth has been reduced to correctness.  Such that the words
> 'true'
> and 'correct' become synonymous.   'This theory is true' means the
> same as
> 'This theory is correct/right.'   The danger of this synonymity is
> that
> when kids are taught in school, they are not taught to practise the
> art of
> truth, but the art of being correct.    Or they can swing to the other
>
> extreme and in a reaction to the notion that the way to be or do
> something
> is the correct way, they substitute this with, there is no correct way
> to
> do these things.   Say teaching the writing of poetry, can swing from
> this
> is the correct way to write poetry, to anything counts as a poem.
> And
> surely both are absurd.    Isn't the Heideggerian question, How does
> one
> get into the poetic way, without that way being the correct way or an
> anarchist reaction?

A very nice paragraph here, Daniel.

Michael Staples



     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---