In a message dated 05/19/2000 5:11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
Such a reading, however, comes from a misinterpretation of what the
statement "there is no truth" means. Rather than saying that "Truth" does
not exist, it points out that "Truth" does not exist independent of its
construction in terms of knowledge.
>>
maybe, but how would one know? isn't the problem the same in any event --
that is, whether or not "truth" exists beyond the human capacity to recognize
its structures, if in fact it's knowable in structures? doesn't this suggest
that the statement "there is no truth" exists in the same ambiguity as "there
is truth"? further, isn't the statement, "there is no truth" itself a
contradiction of the premise it puts forth, that is, that it masquerades as a
true statement?
just curious...
joe brennan...
ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
Such a reading, however, comes from a misinterpretation of what the
statement "there is no truth" means. Rather than saying that "Truth" does
not exist, it points out that "Truth" does not exist independent of its
construction in terms of knowledge.
>>
maybe, but how would one know? isn't the problem the same in any event --
that is, whether or not "truth" exists beyond the human capacity to recognize
its structures, if in fact it's knowable in structures? doesn't this suggest
that the statement "there is no truth" exists in the same ambiguity as "there
is truth"? further, isn't the statement, "there is no truth" itself a
contradiction of the premise it puts forth, that is, that it masquerades as a
true statement?
just curious...
joe brennan...