[Wittrs] Re: On The Dogs at Analytic & Their Friends
- From: "SWM" <swmaerske@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 14:04:24 -0000
Sean wrote: " haughty and broad is preferable to juvenile and narrow"
But we have to be careful that we have not become haughty and narrow, too!
I guess we must just agree to disagree. That's okay. I look forward to seeing
more substantive Wittgenstein-oriented discussions here then.
Thanks.
SWM
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> ... 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:
