[Serious Phil] A Wittgensteinian Critique of Wittgensteiniasm.

[larry_tapper]

LT> ...A point you passed over, which was that if your intention was to contribute a dollop of Witters to the ongoing discussion about "math is empirical", you could have chosen far more pertinent examples than the ones you posted.
>

SW> I told you, it was super easy to cut and paste the slide, and that this dollop was just fine.

Sean, 

I get the "super easy" part, but the "just fine" part I find problematic.

If you wish to discuss this at all, could you explain in what ways you thought the quotations you posted were relevant specifically to the thread in progress?

Larry


--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "seanwilsonorg" <ludwig.sean at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "larry_tapper_2" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > 
> > I do not read "abandoned project" (Monk's words) as any indication that LW repudiated any of the many interesting thoughts on math he had written down in the 1930s. Only that when his attention turned to other things, he did not follow through as he originally intended.
> > 
> 
> The point was not that he repudiated anything, but that the points one would gain from it were subsumed in understanding his points on rule following and "philosophy of psychology." What non-Wittgensteinians do not understand is that there is wonderful coherency in all of the paths that lead to the beach. They all go to the same place. 
> 
> You can place any bets you like. I'll discuss with anyone whom I think I can receive something back. Discussion is nothing more than throwing a ball back and forth.
> 
> Walter and Peter do not catch well, and they throw back not the ball, but knives. Walter throws cards are your face, a knife in your back, while Peter bites at the ankle. It reminds me of what Peter Parker has to face. 
> 
> I like playing ball. You want to throw the ball back and forth, I can do that. 
> 
> 
> > A point you passed over, which was that if your intention was to contribute a dollop of Witters to the ongoing discussion about "math is empirical", you could have chosen far more pertinent examples than the ones you posted. 
> > 
> 
> I told you, it was super easy to cut and paste the slide, and that this dollop was just fine.
> 
>  
> > LT> Sean, I wonder whether if pressed, you'll continue to take the apparent position that grokking Wittgenstein is enough and the reading and research are optional. If that's the case, your stance really *is* religious, even cultish, as Walto suggests. 
> > 
> 
> You have not understood my stance here. I was wanting to write about this, and almost did the other night. I'll get to it. You don't understand what my view is here.
> 
> My view is that philosophic disputes become pointless once all the pertinent information is known. In the case of Eray and Stuart, you could well claim that I am not following in the info closely. You'd be correct. (That was one of Eray's points). I don't care about it. You would be right to regard this as lazy. 
> 
> But this is a MUCH DIFFERENT CLAIM from the one that says the dispute is only over information, and nothing else. And that, even if we grant a certain way of speaking or a certain state of affairs, that other "problems" like dualism or spirits or religion are not threatened. At worse, all it changes is the color of paint in their rooms. This point we could explore further. This is the point that requires creative thinking. 
> 
> But I am not of the opinion that the information (facts) are irrelevant. I never said that. My point is that this is only ever what is at stake, which means it isn't really a philosophic concern. It becomes one of the significance of technology to our aspect sight. 
> 
> And as for not reading more analytic philosophy, that is an achievement I have reached. It's like those lawyers who graduate from divorce practice. I do this from a ground of experience.   
> 
>  
> > LT> And LW agreed with that, as Sean himself stressed in his first lecture. Everyone who had any contact with Wittgenstein remembered how exhausting that could be --- LW demanded rigor and hard thinking and he detested intellectual slackness. 
> > 
> 
> Yes, but his primary rigor was in the depth of his self-thought. That is why he didn't read much philosophy: it didn't make him a better thinker. He did keep up on scientific developments, mathematics, etc., so you could indeed indict me for that. I don't keep up. It is true. 
> 
> But when I finish with my book, perhaps I will change my focus and go full head into scientific issues. 
>  
> One of the reasons why I don't keep is that I do not fear the information. The day Eray builds a brain the same as ours, I could not at all be threatened or concerned with it, philosophically. At most, it is an engineering feat and nothing more. I welcome it.
> 
> > I am only defending old-fashioned careful scholarship here, regardless of what uniform you like to wear. It's my perception that you are to at least some degree contemptuous of that.
> > 
> > Larry
> > 
> 
> I am only contemptuous of talking with those who, from the start, cannot accept certain things. Wittgensteinians receive all sorts of discrimination you know.   
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Philscimind mailing list
> Philscimind at ...
>