[Serious Phil] A Wittgensteinian Critique of Wittgensteiniasm.

[walto]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> Yeah, maybe the best thing is to ignore people like PDJ who just like to keep the balls in the air, whatever it takes, whether changing the subject, issuing insults, equivocating about what they mean, leveling an endless array of charges, etc., etc. I have long been guilty of always thinking there is something left to say, that maybe the next time, the next adjustment in phrasing I discover, and all will be well. I will get through and find common ground with >people like PDJ. 


In my opinion, you give as well as you get on the insult front--but it makes no difference. The point is, it would have made eminent sense for you BOTH to have begun ignoring each other long, long, long ago.  How can either of you possibly think that you will ever "get anywhere" with these endless debates.

I've mentioned Beckett in this connection on several occasions.  But this quotation (of a 'knowing' religious sort that Sean will likely appreciate) also comes to mind:

***********************************

Mullah Nasrudin never argued as he knew that what
the "arguer" sought was confirmation of his beliefs
and not the Truth.
He once showed some students the value of an argument:
A student had asked:
"Does a slice of bread fall with the buttered side up or down?"
And Nasrudin answered:
"With the buttered side down, of course."
"No, with the buttered side up."
"Let's put it to the test."
So Nasrudin buttered a slice of bread threw it up in the air.
It fell-buttered side up!
"I win!" said the student.
"Only because I made a mistake,"
"What mistake?"
"I obviously buttered the wrong side."

*****************************

W