[Wittrs] Walter's Reprise: On the Irrelevance of Certain Philosophy

Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT)

(Walter)

... the position that I took was that I didn't need to monitor CHORAS free will 
debate to know that it was pointless, given what I have already learned about 
philosophy and Wittgenstein (although I had invited you to prove me wrong). The 
same that I don't need to see, e.g., Stuart's ongoing telephone conversation at 
analytic to know anything useful about philosophy.

And that I didn't need to read Principia Mathematica to become better 
philosophically inclined, given what I already know -- because reading ABOUT it 
as an event in intellectual culture is more important than anything it "says." 
As such, I contested the idea that it should be regarded as the best book 
written in philosophy in the 20th century (or even close).  You took the 
5th-grade school teacher's view: that one couldn't say this without first 
reading it, similar to the idea that one couldn't use a word without knowing 
its definition. Both ideas, of course, are false.

Finally, I said that whenever and wherever philosophers engage in false 
problems -- or when they bring to bear formalistic methods to questions that do 
not require formalistic answers -- that one already sufficiently familiar with 
philosophy to have gotten Wittgenstein could simply chose to ignore these 
things, and not be worse off. 

All of these things, I bet, are empirically true. Imagine one designing a 
social study. (I can see in my head what sorts of things you might use as 
measures).

Anyway, if Hintikka or Searle (or you) happen to write something historical in 
nature -- "The Tractatus died in 1929, according to Wittgenstein's notebook 
entries" -- nothing I have ever said would indicate that it might not be worth 
looking at. (Of course, it might be worth ignoring if the framework bias of the 
"analytic" engulfs the work. That's ultimately a function of how it is 
approached). 

You ought to try asking me, Walter, rather than assuming you know what I have 
said or think. You very commonly jump on something and build it into a straw 
man. It works well for comedy -- extremely well -- but not for "getting it." 
 And you walk away in frustration when someone shows you this. Or you take 
quotes out of context. This is far better, of course, than your 
friend, d'Artagnan -- who is known to me only as the thrower of sand in faces. 

One of the things that would be helpful to both of you is if you could ever 
restate someone's position with their approval. Only if you have their blessing 
can you then properly wield their thoughts. 

Regards and thanks.

Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://tinyurl.com/3eatnrx
Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs

[Wittrs] Walter's Reprise: On the Irrelevance of Certain Philosophy

Other related posts: