Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.postmodern,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!hatunen
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Subject: Re: Heidegger
Message-ID: <hatunenDsHC82.Kz3@netcom.com>
Organization: Next week we've just got to get organized
References: <DsB3Br.Bq0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <DsF74o.6wB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4ov3kf$o3o@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <DsG5yy.302@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:28:50 GMT
Lines: 38
Sender: hatunen@netcom10.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:176959 sci.lang:55169

In article <DsG5yy.302@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
David Swanson <dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu> wrote:
>In article <4ov3kf$o3o@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
>tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>
>> Since you find the term "liar" offensive (though I didn't use it) I conclude
>> that you believe that the term is meaningful. I wish to understand
>> how a person can believe in the existence of lies without believing
>> in the existence of truth. I am genuinely interested in a substantive answer.
>
>First of all, as regards the Galileo story, whether or not it happened
>does not strike me as relevant to the point being made, viz.  there are
>no "pure facts".  If such a claim has no hope of getting anywhere with
>you, just ignore it, don't start talking about windows or something.

It is extremely relevant if Heidegger is adding additional "facts", such
as the actions of others in response to the "experiment" to make his
point. But it, and your rationalization above, may be a perfect
demonstration of the thesis states. 

But how one demonstrates the relative nature of facts by positing a
falsehood escapes me...

>"True" is (I should set this to music I've said it so much) a term we
>apply to our current firm beliefs.  "Lying" is presenting something as
>your belief which is not your belief.  Outside of this discussion, you
>would probably accept such an obvious answer.

"Lying" may have been too strong a word, since it implies a basic
malice and intention. "Stupidity" might be a more apt word here.



-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

