[Wittrs] Re: On The Dogs at Analytic & Their Friends
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 23:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
... well, here is what I would say:
1. If their foolishness is not enough to make you think their non-foolishness
foolish, then I suppose it behooves you to play at the carnival. You are quite
right to note that I prefer a more quiet and "reclusive" list. I've long
counted
the number of the Analytic folk who have, over time, finally left. I confess
even to deleting a name or two myself, in the comfort of the dark. So we do
have
different visions here, for sure. I'd take a list of 3 good discussants
as preferable to any democracy of urges and confessions.
But that's just me.
And my rationalization for it is free-market oriented: why have another of what
is so common out there? I wanted a walled city, to preserve something that
could
not exist in the open fields of wolves and trolls.
2. As you know, we continue to not see eye-to-eye over how I see
Wittgensteinianism. I confess to not being able to "tone down" the thoughts
that
I find most convincing. Were I to "tone down," I would suffocate exactly the
kinds of flowers this garden was built to house.
I also cannot agree with you about the free-will thing. Here's the difference.
If Wittgensteinians understand certain conversations to be "false problems" by
the virtue of the very way they are set up, there is nothing wrong with either
neglecting those conversations or telling others about the set up. The failure
that Walter had in the discussion was that he could never defend THE
CONVERSATION. He could only defend his patriotism: the love of the lost
philosophers. That's what it all really was for him and J: a defense of the
social club.
And so, I really couldn't see the benefit of watching displaced aggression come
from "company men." What good does it do to have a Pit Bull sending in
comic-book zingers every time he half-understands an idea, solely because he
can't handle his desired occupation being besmirched? I mean, it would be like
a
patriot not being able to discuss gays in the military or something (or defense
cuts or what not).
Anyway, I have them on "hold" anytime they want to show they can actually throw
a thought around. Believe me, we're not missing much. J has potential, of
course, but even he is way too inclined to pout when he thinks his view isn't
being accepted.
I guess what I've ultimately said to you is that haughty and broad is
preferable
to juvenile and narrow. But I do grant that whatever aesthetic I have adopted
here, you disagree with. Yours is a kind of democratic spirit. And I understand
that.
The difference here is really like that of a chosen meal. I've built
the restaurant I want. We'll just leave it at that.
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
Other related posts:
