In a message dated 11/27/2015 9:53:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"Everything Old Is New Again":>
Actually, it may be one of your better ones.
Thanks.
I forgot to mention that of course the point was this distinction between
Witters
i. The palaeo-Wittgensteinians ('the old").
ii. The neo-Wittgensteinians ("the new").
and that perhaps McEvoy underestimates this distinction. Since,
iii. Everything old is new again.
it may be too Popperian (if that's the adverb, 'too') to expect
Wittgensteinians, neo-Wittgensteinians, and palaeo-Wittgensteinians, to agree
or to
even _follow_ Witters. Consider the disimplicature:
iv. A: I am a Wittgensteinian; but surely I don't follow. First, I don't
know where he went.
Geary: And second?
A: "First" is a figure of rhetoric.
Geary: And a stoopid one at that. Stop using it. First, it makes me
lose my temper.
I'll address the other points later _if I can_ -- before too long.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
