The `meaning of things is presupposed as epistemically available whenever the defined stasis of an answer places a situation (and thus the beings therein) into ordered articulation, i.e., meaning adheres to things and beings as a form of reification insofar as beings are assumed to be properly understood in their definitive nature. As such, “meaning” is presupposed as explicit and coherent qua the dominant semiotic structure of the times (this via self-referential circularity). It is as such that a shared and intersubjective understanding of beings and the world advances, and it is as such that the communicative [rational] life-world which is touted by thinkers such as Kant and Habermas grounds as a basis for intrapersonal dialogue, ethics, and praxis.172 “Meaning” is presupposed anytime the epistemic comes to the fore as a mirror-of-correspondence qua truth. Insofar as meaning maintains efficacy relative to the truths individuals believe (and thus insofar as the meanings a culture accepts as definitive appear to reflect a `true’ interpretations of the world as “factually” objective), the answers which form the basis of support for this belief-of-meaning are themselves assumed efficacious in validity out of hand [i.e., hitherto thinking assumes such “answers” as apriori tenets of reason—Aristotles basis of causation in the Metaphysics and made explicit via the Nicomachean Ethics (ο άνθρωπος είναι το ζώο με το λόγο της ψυχής)]. Of course, this dynamic speaks to how meaning and answers preside over the effulgence-of-truth as some/thing “present”; and this through nothing but a belief in the accuracy of how answers correspondence to the phenomenal world qua conscious perception. Because one can be consciously aware of unicorns and any manner of phantasm, and maintain a belief in the fact of having had this awareness, we see why the epoch of metaphysics now comes to completion: the Tradition no longer holds any compelling sense of relevance aside for its ability to placate will-to-power and thinkings numbness. In effect, when `anything can be deemed true via appeal to the paradigm that is advancing the matrix of validity, the underlying nihilism of will-to-power is exposed. With this postmodern revelation, traditional channels of epistemology come to closure, no longer able to compel history forward.173 This state of affairs—how it is with truth [ἀ-λήθεια]—speaks to what is withheld and concealed by the metaphysical method of revelation. Such likewise speaks to the nature of answers; for a truth based upon nothing but the belief in an answer’s corresponding meaning-import (as such is relative to an objective universe) reduces truth to a period-specific contingency that is grounded upon (and within) nothing but a nominalistic noumenal metaphysics.174 --FOOTNOTES-- 172. In all of this the essential caveat revolves around the question regarding who or what is controlling the semiotics of the language-games within the culture (as such becomes properly seen as the real seat of power as Adorno and critical theory emphasizes). 173. This revelation speaks to what Vattimo (The End of Modernity) and Fukuyama (The End of History and the Last Man) develop (this as such takes from both Nietzsche and Marx). 174. A nominalisticly derived “truth” is nothing but the corresponding “image” of what is an objectively defined semiotic referent; this as such is assumed to accurately define and mirror a reality presupposed as wholly `other’ to the apperceptive conscious mind. Hence, the mind-body problem comes to the fore together with theological conjecture, and all manner of noumenal nonsense regarding things in themselves advances like some rationalized psychosis. This dynamic is a byproduct of “truth” when such is derived via a nominalistic metaphysics. [All Rights Reserved; Use by Kind Permission (c)(P) 2011 2012 A Single Star in Sight]
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 03:40:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015