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

  • From: "walto" <walterhorn@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:17:53 -0000

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.

W

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> (re: Walter)
> 
> ... yes, but, as you say, Carnap's view was "proven wrong." So in comparing 
> the 
> difference between this and Wittgensteinianism we would now need to know more 
> about: (a) your sense of "brilliance;" and (b) whether the ethic of humility 
> is 
> good or bad here. Is this an ethic that advances the ordinary? What if 
> Wittgensteininans advance an ethic of sincerity and honesty over everything 
> else? Is the selection of one over the other like the selection one might 
> make 
> of ice cream, or is it, perhaps, an issue of pedagogy (of how to tell things 
> - 
> honestly and directly, or "with sugar")?  
>  
> P.S. The claim isn't that anyone is "retarded;" it's that they are confused, 
> and, perhaps, not that insightful. Plenty of people lack insight like others 
> lack mathematical ability. Or others still, spelling abilities (and what 
> not). 
> The issue here is really akin to whether one is a good artist. It's the same 
> sort of thing.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: walto <walterhorn@...>
> To: wittrsamr@...
> Sent: Sat, April 16, 2011 12:42:11 PM
> Subject: [Wittrs] Re: Language games, html, and the Varieties of Nonsense
> 
> Main differences from Carnap:
> 
> 1) Carnap had a very solid understanding about what philosophy was and how it 
> worked, before saying it was largely nonsense.
> 
> 2) Carnap had some humility, and did not suggest that people he disagreed 
> with 
> were either retarded or insane or both or they would see that he was correct.
> 
> 3) Carnap was brilliant.
>

Other related posts:

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