(1986) Man and World 19 (1).

Dawn and dusk

Gadamer and Heidegger on truth

Francis J. Ambrosio

pp. 21-53

Understanding certainly does not mean merely the taking over of traditional opinion or the acknowledgment of what has been enshrined by tradition. Heidegger, who had first identified the concept of understanding as a universal determination of Dasein, means thereby precisely the character of understanding as project, which is really to say, Dasein in its orientation toward its own future. At the same time, I do not wish to deny that I for my part have emphasized within the universal matrix of the elements of understanding its direction toward the appropriation of what is past and has been handed-down. Heidegger, too, like many of my critics, may here feel the absence of an ultimate radicality in drawing out consequences. What does the end of metaphysics as a science mean? What is the significance of its ending in science? If science climaxes in a total technocracy and brings on with it the "cosmic night" of the forgetfulness of being, the nihilism foretold by Nietzsche, is one then permitted to look back toward the last rays of dusk as the sun sets in the evening sky instead of turning to watch out for the first shimmer of its return?

Publication details

DOI: 10.1007/BF01248377

Full citation:

Ambrosio, F. J. (1986). Dawn and dusk: Gadamer and Heidegger on truth. Man and World 19 (1), pp. 21-53.

This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.