Re: [Wittrs] Walter's Reprise: On the Irrelevance of Certain Philosophy
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittgenstein's Aftermath <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Walter:
The decision not to read X is not undertaken tabula rasa. The dismissal comes
from the vantage point of having learned that certain kinds of conversations
are not helpful, because of the way an orientation pre-configures them. A
Wittgensteinian doesn't walk away from false problems in philosophy; he
graduates from them.
What you are saying is similar to this: how do you know sermon X coming from
orientation Y (say, evangelical) wasn't something that would have changed your
beliefs? The answer is: after having learnt of Y, and seeing enough sermons,
one gains the license to skip X. (If I am wrong about X, I'd get the news
anyway, because it would be novel, something that would come to redefine Y).
Your persistence on this point is really problematic inasmuch as I had asked
you to sit with me, in "therapy," over why the free will debate was a problem
in need of a position. We can extend this: why someone being a "realist"
(versus whatever) is a real problem. Or why consciousness being said to be
physical is a problem for philosophy.
You seem to think that this reduces to taste. That if I don't regard X as being
worth my time, it would akin to thinking Soccer is less valuable than Football.
I don't offer my disregard of X as a taste; I do so under warrant that: (a)
there are no real philosophic stakes to the discussion; (b) I have learned
this; and (c) that, very often, the problem itself is manufactured by the sins
of philosophy. If I am wrong about these things, we could discuss them. But if
I am right about them, my dismissal cannot be one of taste -- at least not in
the sense we mean. (I might have a taste for (a) through (c) -- but that's not
the issue here).
Keep in mind that I pass no judgment on the value of these concerns to the
disputants themselves -- they may be getting some benefit from them. My
comments purport to come from a perch or loft -- one who has gone from being a
disputant to having been given the inheritance of Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein,
properly understood, will change a person's orientation: he'll set you free in
certain ways. I can only be wrong if Wittgenstein is wrong, provided I have
properly understood. So perhaps it would be better not to focus on my reading
habits, but to focus upon whether the things I dismiss do, in fact, lack
stakes, are false problems, etc. (and in what sense).
Too much of our dispute has talked around the discussion: about me, and not the
issue at hand.
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:
