Which is precisely why I have always argued that Zarathushtraä's concept of "asha" should not be translated at all to English, especially not to "truth" or "righteousness", none of which capture the meaning of the word. "Funtionality" is better but still does not capture the ethical part of the concept, and that is of course as important as its epistemological meaning.
Asha is just asha, just like karma is karma in Indian philosophy. The most important concepts should not be translated as any translation would fail to capture their most important meaning. I would even stretch this to "haurvatat" where "transecndence" is a better trabslation than "immortality" but where none of the words capture the meaning.
2009/12/11 Special Kain
I agree 100%. Asha is «what fits» and therefore in tune with the post-realistic principles of functionality and intersubjective agreement, especially because cognition and interaction can't be separated. That's also exactly what I said several months ago and that's why I consider John Dewey to be Zarathushtra's nephew. I just don't know if that's precisely what Zarathushtra wanted to say, but am I supposed to care whether he did?
I don't think that a discussion which truths are possible and which truths are impossible would help us here. That's why I made this shift from «truth» to «functionality» several years ago. Two theories contradict each other on all essential points, but their employment proves them both «right» instrumentalistically.