[lit-ideas] Re: Copy of The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, 1918 version...

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:50:35 +0000 (UTC)



 

Pears'  commentary is about as long as the sum of Russell's eight lectures,
but it's often more informative.>
True to type, Pears writes about these issues with not even a nod to what
Popper would, or might, say (though inevitably Wittgenstein is given
significant space). This might be justified if Popper were of marginal
importance to these issues, and not arguably the most important theorist of
knowledge of the last century. Though I doubt Pears could show that Popper's
theory of knowledge' has no importance to these issues, that doesn't stop him
writing as if it is.
Pears might be "often more informative" than Russell but that does not mean 
that, in a wider sense, Pears is truly 'well-informed' philosophically. Without
wishing to suggest Pears' commentary does not have its merits, the bubble some 
people live their intellectual lives in is truly shocking: we should experience
the same kind of shock reading this stuff as we would if we read a paper by a
Christchurch scientist in 1985  which defended a new version of Lamarckism
(without referencing Darwin) or weighed up the pros and cons of
phlogiston-theory (for these 'logical atoms' are a kind of philosophical
'phlogiston'). Somehow many of us don't.
DLondon




Other related posts: