Abstract

In this paper I examine the intuition that underpins Vattimo's thesis that thought is weak. It is the intuition that our ways of thinking depend not just on what there is, but on our activities, including the activity of interpretation. The following then seems to follow naturally from this: If we cannot factor out the contribution that the activity of interpretation plays in delimiting the very structure of thought, the idea that thought can sometimes operate as a transparent window on how things are becomes problematic - thought is weak. That conclusion can seem obvious and well-grounded. In this paper I argue that it is not. I argue that the thesis that the contours of thought are in part a function of what we do does not mean that our concepts cannot be assessed with respect to the plain truth about how things are