File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9809, message 2


Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:01:43 +0200
Subject: Re:  truth, disclosedness, obscurity
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)


Cologne, 01 September 1998

Peder Wuth Pedersen schrieb:
> A close reading of page 218 in sz.
>
>
> Heidegger distinguishes between at least two kinds of truth, truth as
> disclosure and truth as certainty (richtigkeit). Richtigkeit he places in
> the realm of subject-object relations and is the traditional (scientific)
> way of thinking truth (adaequatio intellectus et rei). truth as richtigkeit
> depends on disclosure in the first place. So disclosure is prior to
> richtigkeit (is this what you mean Anthony ?).  If I understand it correctly
> this is the first movement of section 44 of sz and there seems to be no
> problem with that.
>
> On page 218 Heidegger introduces a deeper concept of truth, truth as
> disclosure. This happens when he says that the true statement shows the
> being AS IT is in itself (Das gemeinte Seiende selbst zeigt sich SO WIE es
> an ihm selbst ist (sz 218). This  definition of truth leaves room for false
> disclosure. If the being is shown as it is in itself it is true an if it
> shows itself as it is not in itself  it is untrue. The important part seems
> to be the "so-wie" since Heidegger highlights it. The so-wie indicates the
> mode of discovering. Discovering the being as it is in itself means truth
> and discovering the being as it is not in itself means untruth. These are
> the two possible modes of discovering.
>
> But Heideggers second definition of truth on page 218 leaves out the
> "so-wie" (as it is). He writes "Die aussage ist wahr, bedeutet: sie entdeckt
> das Seiende an im selbst" (the statement is true means it discovers the
> being in itself). It is quite strange that the "so-wie" is left out in this
> second definition of truth. Why leave out the part that was highlighted in
> the first definition of truth ? There still seems to be no problem though.
> One can easily argue that "so-wie" is not needed since it is implied when he
> writes "an im selbst" (in itself) and "an im selbst" is just the easy way to
> write "SO WIE es an ihm selbst ist". No matter what way he writes it there
> is still room for true and untrue disclosure.
>
> The whole thing becomes really strange in Heideggers third definition of
> truth on page 218. Now the definition is reduced even more and both the
> "so-wie" and the "an im selbst" is gone ! he writes "Wahrsein (wahrheit) der
> Aussage muss verstanden werden als entdeckend-sein (truth of the statement
> must be understood as discovering).
>
> In the first two definitions of truth it was important how the being was
> discovered (marked by the an im selbst). It mattered whether the being was
> discovered as it is in itself or as it is not in itself. These are two
> different modes of discovering. But in the third definition these two
> possible modes of discovering are gone ! There is only discovering and any
> discovering is truth !
>
>  One can get an idea of how important this reduction is by comparing with
> Husserl. The two first definitions of truth are very close to Husserls
> definition of truth (in a note on page 218 Heidegger mentions Husserls
> Logische Untersuchungen and this is done after the first definition of
> truth). But the third definition of truth is very far from Husserl. This
> philosophical shift away from Husserl happens within one page without any
> explanation whatsoever ! Is this Heideggers desperate attempt to get away
> from the influence of the fatherfigure Husserl and get a life of his own ?
>
> Within one page Heidegger goes from having two different modes of
> discovering to having only one that is always true and thereby loosing the
> specific phenomenon of truth.
>
> When I ask if there can be true and false disclosure the answer must be yes
> and no depending on which part of page 218 I read. As far as I know
> Heidegger maintains the third definition of truth and this brings me back to
> my first questions: how am I to know if something is true or false if any
> disclosure is true according to Heidegger ?

Peder, a general comment. Your line of reasoning here depends on reading the 
text as having a series of definitions embedded in it. But Heidegger's 
phenomenology never proceeds by way of definitions. Rather his texts point to 
what he is getting at by means of einer Einzeichnung einzelner Wesensmomente in 
einen Wesensgrundriss (by inscribing individual essential moments in the 
ground-plan of an essential structure). This structure may be complex. The text 
is thus 'peripatetic', i.e. it proceeds by wandering around a ground-plan and 
pointing out the essential moments which come into view one by one.

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact-AT-t-online.de-_-_ 
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-





     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005