[Wittrs] Re: To Be Or Not To Become ... A Lobotomite
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 01:24:42 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
> that LW later went beyong the TLP is true ... as a vague generality.
>
> but, since we are talking specifically about TLP 5.6, the question is
> whether LW ever transcended this particular insight. can you cite a
> passage from PI (or any work subsequent to TLP) where (according to you)
> LW retracts, discredits or disowns TLP 5.6?
>
> Joe
How typical of you! Since I never said anything about the particular citation
you gave us, except to make the point that, since Wittgenstein left the TLP
behind, there was little reason to cite material from the TLP to deny or
disqualify points he made in his later work (as you did when you made your
rather snippy recent reference to the "ordinary language sports bar"), there is
no reason for me to respond to your demand that I support a putative claim
which I never made, i.e., that he specifically retracted the statement you
reference in the TLP.
Isn't this rather like the silliness we went through when you insisted I
support a claim I hadn't made about Dennett but which you imagined I had made?
Or one about Searle, if memory serves (as you formerly claimed I was accusing
Searle of being a property dualist, no doubt because that IS what some of his
critics accuse him of, even though that wasn't my point at all).
Anyway, suffice it to say that your latest demand is off track yet again, just
as many of your prior ones have been.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
