[Serious Phil] On the Two Literature Cultures of Wittgenstein

[SWM]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
 
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> >  
> > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "walto" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "iro3isdx" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I never said anything about "autistic superpowers."
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think your sarcasm detector is broken.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks for the entertainment.  This thread may have lacked content, but it brought a smile.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Quite honestly, Sean, there was a cultish ring to what you wrote in the opening post for the thread.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I agree with that, Neil. Sean is a little too enamoured of Wittgenstein for my taste and yet he is entitled to his view and doesn't deserve the kind of character assassination he has recently been evoking from some quarters here. And yes, Sean could probably benefit from a little thicker skin and, perhaps, a bit more self-examination, not to mention a more finely tuned "sarcasm detector". But in the context of the attacks he has recently been subject to (probably for occasionally defending me!) I see his point. Having been on the receiving end of similar poisonous barbs myself, often delivered teams, I can readily see how he might not feel especially receptive to a little sarcastic repartee.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think he's on the right track. If this list is to be of any use to anyone again, it has to be cleaned of the incendiary stuff. Unfortunately there are some who have come here who seem to have only that sort of thing on their minds. Are these kind of people really the sort who should be posting here? I would have said no initially but Sean was dead set on an open list and wasn't budging from that view back when he first broached the idea of it with me (after I was summarily booted from Analytic). Perhaps now, though, he's having second thoughts?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > SWM 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As I said before, he wants YOU to be the heavy.  I mentioned to Larry the other day, that I almost feel sorry for him sometimes that you have been so reluctant to ban us.  And, FWIW, in my case, you don't actually even need to ban me. You can just ask me nicely not to post here anymore, and I'll be happy to agree.  I just don't want my silence when somebody posts complete nonsense to be thought of as concurrence.  It's probably a dumb weakness on my part, but there it is.  When Sean makes one of his absurd, hypocritical, masturbatory pontifications, I find it almost impossible not to chide him.  But if you ask me not to post here, it will be clear that there's no hint of assent implied by non-response.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also, so long as the messages remain public, I can make fun of him elsewhere.
> > > > > 
> > > > > W
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Here's what I'd ask of you Walter. Post with the respect for others you'd like others to show toward you. And if you want to say you don't care who is nasty to you (which would be false given things you've posted here in moments of higher dudgeon), then put yourself in the other guy's shoes and post with the respect for him that you would hope he and others would show toward you IF YOU WERE HIM. (This is more complicated than Jesus' Golden Rule but it's probably more precise linguistically, removing unnecessary ambiguity.) For the rest, post away. -- SWM
> > > 
> > > Is there an option  to respect the poster, but despise the posting?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Respecting your fellow discussants here should be the only standard as far as I am concerned. For those seeking more specificity as to what I mean by THAT it means avoiding personal attacks, innuendoes, snide remarks, derogatory insults, as hominem maneuvers, etc. One would think that should be clear enough. 
> 
> So I can say a postING is rubbish?
> 
> 


It's not very nice but I suppose if you must have the ability to sneer on-line in some way, sure. As long as you don't use it as a jumping off point to attack the person (which I suspect would pose some difficulty for you but, hey, let's try it). Given that, you can even drop the "ing" and say a post is "rubbish" so think of the freedom you now have! Of course others may reply in kind and say something you've posted is garbage, too. But I guess you can take it. Just steer clear of the personal attacks. Can you do that, Peter?