[Serious Phil] A Wittgensteinian Critique of Wittgensteiniasm.
peterdjones at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 8 07:58:21 CDT 2012
By default, speech is not a reliable source of accurate information--things aren't true just because
someone says them--and so things like explanation, justification argument and support are required
before claims are accepted.
By default, vision *is* a reliable source of accurate information -- we trust the evidence of
our own eyes unless we have good reason not to.
Stuart's appeals to Wittgenstein consist entirely of the use of visual metaphors -- "picture", "see", "insight" --in the place of terms like "opinion", "theory" and "belief". Having done so, the then has his excuse
to forget entirely about argument and justification. After all you don't need to justify what you *literally* see, so why would you need to justify your "insights"?
This is, of course, a prime example of bewitchement by language. A theory is till a theory even if you call it an insight. Taken too literally, the metaphor misleads.
More information about the Philscimind