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

  • From: "walto" <walterhorn@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 04:25:18 -0000


--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> On reflection, Walter, you might want to consider the following:
> 
> 1. If your 11-year old had been studying Court decisions for years (at a 
> level 
> well beyond her age), had been a believer (and practitioner) in them early 
> on, 
> had discovered a criticism of them from the most intelligent mind of our age, 
> and had been intelligent enough herself to absorb that criticism -- it might 
> then be a good comparison if she declared no further need to read them. Is 
> it condescension to point out a poor comparison? What are the rules for that? 
>   
> 
> 2. Do you realize that your contributions with me in this thread amount to 
> the 
> following:
> 
> (a)..You said my view was Carnapian  (i.e, you didn't understand);
> (b). You thought I had called people "retarded" (again, didn't understand)
> (c) You claimed I didn't know what I was talking about (sophistry)
> (d) You avoided an invite to discuss the matter in some detail 
> (e) You take your usual personal swipes 
> (f) You trash quote on purpose 
> (g) you offer up the church-club ethic, yet have more blood on your fangs 
> than 
> anyone ever could. 
> 
> This is a Wittgenseinian list. And I think you have to understand that 
> Wittgensteinians tend not to care that people dislike intellectual arrogance, 
> especially where one hasn't yet shown any promise to discuss the ethics of 
> it. 
> The point of this list isn't for you to "hit and run" like you do on 
> Analytic. 
> Every time a person besmirches philosophy with arrogance, your role isn't to 
> butt in with (a) through (g). That's not why this is here.
> 
> So how about either thinking more about what you want to say? 
> 


I stand by everything I've said. To wit:

Your remark that discourses on freedom of the will is nonsense is indeed 
Carnapian (although he actually knew a hell of a lot about philosophy, and you 
don't). You spent an entire post indicating your view that those disagree with 
your view on this matter both stupid and sick.

I RESPONDED to those insults by noting that

(a) you don't actually have much knowledge of or understanding about 
philosophy; and 

(b) posts of the type I responded to are arrogant and condescending.  

And those are also true.  So maybe  you should think more your own posts rather 
than focusing on mine.

In any case, I'm done with this bickering.  My point was to defend 
philosophical analysis against the ignorant insults I read here.  I've now done 
that and have no wish to continue discussing these matters with one both as 
biased and as weirdly cocksure about these issues as you are.  You've got your 
students to have those discussions with.

W

Other related posts:

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