Re: [Wittrs] Walter's Reprise: On the Irrelevance of Certain Philosophy
- From: "walto" <walterhorn@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittgenstein's Aftermath <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:16:17 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> One of the things that would be helpful to both of you is if you could ever
> restate someone's position with their approval. Only if you have their
> blessing can you then properly wield their thoughts.
>
I simply repost something you wrote a few weeks ago, and ask (i) how you might
know what is in these various books articles you dismiss if you don't take a
moment even to look through them (I mean even Hintikka may write something you
think is "interesting); and (ii) why if one doesn't have the time or the
interest to read or watch or listen to this or that topic, it remains
appropriate not just to say "I'm not interested" but to take the further step
and insist that it is "nonsense."
**********************************************
"It's always quite curious to hear people make the claim that one couldn't
reject certain kinds of philosophy without first reading through it. If you
think about it, in daily life, one could never read EVERYTHING about the things
one believes. In fact, part of what skillful thinking is, is learning what NOT
to read so as to not waste valuable time. In fact, one could say it this way:
reading is only for things that have ALREADY shown their worth in some way.
How many people decide to read a journal article based upon its abstract? Or
see a movie based upon its trailer? Or see an encyclopedic summary before
deciding whether to read source material or to dig further? Or, how many people
are taught lectures about something (in college) as a filter for deciding
whether the thing is worth deeper investigation? Or, those who investigate
after seeing
a happenstance -- i.e., people brewing over something. How many times do you
discriminate among newspaper stories by looking at the headline?"
*********************************************************
Nobody (well, certainly not I) is suggesting that you must read
'everything'--only that you shouldn't be judging stuff with which you have no
familiarity.
FWIW, that's one reason I would never rank the "best philosophy books" of this
or that era: it makes sense to me only to say which philosophers or books I
have liked best or profited from most. What I decry is this need to rank--or
even disdain--what we do not know. How can anyone who has read PI but not
_Word and Object_, know (or even have an inkling) that one book is better than
the other? Why make a little humility a vice?
W
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
