On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > §464. My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised > nonsense to something that is patent nonsense. > > My point was that Wittgenstein sees something important in awareness, > in contrast to reflection, and wants to lead the reader towards > greater awareness. > Intriguing. But is there more going on in that "nonsense" than a bit of Zen intended to expose the limits of thought? > > My point was not that other disciplines > don't have purposiveness but rather that philosophy has its own kind. > Wittgenstein gives examples for a purpose, a purpose that could be > called philosophical. This philosophical purpose of giving examples > would then be distinguished from the purpose of giving examples in > psychology or anthropology. In short, this purposiveness that > characterizes the giving of philosophical examples would be an > important part of distinguishing the purposiveness at work in > psychology or anthropology. And....and... How do you see the purposes differing in accounts of the incest taboo? John -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN Tel. +81-45-314-9324 http://www.wordworks.jp/