Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:58:01 +0100 Subject: Re: Truth as an Entity From: "michaelP" <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk> 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-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005