[Serious Phil] A Wittgensteinian Critique of Wittgensteiniasm.

[seanwilsonorg]

Could someone restate this for me as a hypothetical? It could be the very first genuine philosophic concern in this raging conversation. Give it to me as a hypo:

X says "such and such"

Y says back "such and such"

I want to see who is right. I can't delve into it in the current form. I don't even know what is happening.  

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "larry_tapper" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> Shrewd point here.  L.
> 
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Philscimind mailing list
> > Philscimind@
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Philscimind mailing list
> Philscimind at ...
>