[Wittrs] Re: Russell or Wittgenstein?
- From: brendan downs <downs_brendan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:05:55 +1200
Would anybody like to discuss a colloborative approach for a non academic book
on these ideas$ anybody interested can email, downs_brendan@hotamail my idea
for a format would be for me to provide the ideas which are debatable, and for
a colloborative approach for others to provide style and background into to the
book.
Brendan
> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:37:14 +0000
> From: jrstern@xxxxxxxxx
> To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Wittrs] Re: Russell or Wittgenstein?
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, brendan downs <wittrs@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why refute your own work???
>
> Because he was a young punk when he wrote the early version,
> and he matured and realized his errors, not to mention the fads
> and fashions of the times had changed.
>
> Inspired by some of the recent discussions here, and by some of
> the (re)reading I've been doing in any case, I'm starting to
> establish a little more of my own feel for just how TLP differs
> from PI, at least in and around the issues I find most interesting.
> And, apparently a rarity so far on this forum, I try to put it into
> the perspective of what other work was going on in the fields of
> philosophy, science, and even general culture, at the same time.
> I'm now playing with the idea that, to a first approximation, what
> Wittgenstein did was not so much refute his earlier work, as invert
> it. Is that a refutation? Look at the Hubble telescope, someone
> in the original figuring inverted a couple of washers and fittings,
> screwing it up. Afterwards, they had to fix it by creating
> offsetting errors in other areas. Did they "refute" the earlier
> version?
>
> (I'm not really in love with the little Hubble metaphor above
> but it's so cute anyway I don't want to discard it, so what,
> the heck, if it doesn't do anything for you ask Sean
> for a refund!)
>
>
> >He uses Augstines system of language and he turns ostensive definitions into
> >ostensive training. now this implicty implied in the act of pointing is
> >teaching, so ostensive definitions into ostensive definitions training is
> >sononyomous with each other. like "slab" and "bring me a slab".
>
> I think if you read any decent commentary on Wittgenstein, it will
> help explain how he often starts with some contrary opinion, like
> Augustine's associational/ostensive learning, just in order to more
> clearly depart from it. LW has to be read slowly and carefully,
> and it really helps to discuss it with others, and to read some
> of the secondary literature on it. Of course there remain huge
> disagreements even there on what it all means, not to mention that
> whatever it meant, it still might be right, or wrong, or neither.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
> TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
> 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
> 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
> GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
> YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
> FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
>
_________________________________________________________________
Looking to move up the career ladder? Explore the endless opportunities here!
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fmsn%2Eseek%2Eco%2Enz%2FID%5FSEEKNZMAIN%5FUSR%2FPages%2Falliance%5Fhomepage%2Eascx%3FComeFrom%3Dmsnnz%26tracking%3Dsk%3Atl%3Asknz%3Amsnnz%3A0%3Ahottag%3Aexplore&_t=757263783&_r=Seek_NZ_tagline&_m=EXT
Other related posts:
