From: Mike Staples <mstaples@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 09:33:54 -0700
> I agree. But firstly, I still hold that the reason why these
> 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
> defines, but the meaning of chair. Secondly, it is not that
> proof, etc., have no place in Heidegger, but because Heidegger thinks
> 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
> and 'correct' become synonymous. 'This theory is true' means the
> same as
> 'This theory is correct/right.' The danger of this synonymity is
> 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
> is the correct way, they substitute this with, there is no correct way
> do these things. Say teaching the writing of poetry, can swing from
> is the correct way to write poetry, to anything counts as a poem.
> surely both are absurd. Isn't the Heideggerian question, How does
> get into the poetic way, without that way being the correct way or an
> anarchist reaction?
A very nice paragraph here, Daniel.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
+ Previous by Thread:
+ Next by Thread:
Partial thread listing:
- Re: Clarity, (continued…)