[Wittrs] Re: Language games, html, and the Varieties of Nonsense

  • From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:46:50 -0700 (PDT)

Walter writes: "It's not the sincerity and honesty that concerns me--it's the 
certainty of being correct.  Especially, where the knowledge of what these 
other 
sorely "lacking" individuals actually believed and wrote is so slight.  Pretty 
much everybody thinks he/she is right about pretty much everything.  What 
matters are the arguments. Otherwise, it's just religion."

... I'm not sure I follow. The lacking individuals actually believed and wrote 
slightly. Therefore, the feeling of certainty that one has about them being 
"lacking" concerns you? This is because they would be misunderstood?

Let me try to clear this up.

The issue here are those in philosophy who base their energies around topics 
like "free will." (and many others like this). To Wittgensteinians, this is as 
pointless as catholics and protestants arguing to each other about who is 
right. 
Or, those who argue whether we have souls. And the reason why many in 
philosophy 
cannot see the insignificance of these "debates" is that they have not 
progressed sufficiently to understand Wittgensteinian ideas. Now, the issue 
becomes this: how do you show this?

"Arguments" (as such) can't the the vehicle, because it assumes that each 
person's ability is equal in this respect, and that the matter lays itself out 
like mathematics might. The whole grammar of "argument" suggests that any 
person 
can be shown a mistake in premises, in logic, in proof, etc. -- and that this 
would resolve the whole thing. In point of fact, however, all it does is cause 
the thing to go on indefinitely. All it does is cause the next round of 
formalized allegiances. All it does is perpetuate the meaningless ritual of 
disputation.

Instead, the method has to change. The method changes to something closer to 
aesthetics than to math. You don't ask: are the premises right? You ask, how 
refined is the perspective? All philosophies are perspectival in some respect 
-- 
including analytic philosophy. And the dismissing of certain pointless pursuits 
is not unlike the dismissing that occurs in art and literature with respect to 
what "counts." Good philosophy is closer to good art criticism that it is 
equations and mathematics. (Or science).

I want to say: one who learns symbolic logic learns the art of shoveling. One 
who learns Wittgenstein learns the art of dance. 

In truth, Walter, the only way that ordinary minds can see the insights of 
Wittgenstein is through sessions wherein the pointless philosophic noise of 
certain conversations reduce themselves to EXAMPLES. All philosophic work is 
done "on the ground." Now, if you want, give us an example (a hypothetical) 
that 
shows where and how the free will problem presents any issue at all for 
philosophy or for science. I'll put you on the therapy clock if you wish. I'll 
try, once again, to show you that ghosts are pointless and that the church-club 
ethics you espouse is really only a way to protect your properties from 
invasion.



Regards and thanks.

Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrsamr
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2011