[lit-ideas] Re: FAO Phil/Here we go again
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:04:16 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Fri, 17/4/09, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: FAO Phil/Here we go again
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Friday, 17 April, 2009, 10:37 AM
> Donal wrote:
>
> "Phil has previously conceded that his own view is not
> supported by
> any explicit statement by W in TLP. According to his own
> strictures
> then, his views are not the result of any 'textual
> analysis'."
>
> Nope. What I conceded is that I was not quoting
> Wittgenstein. I am
> claiming that my view is supported by the text of
> TLP. The supporting
> part is the textual analysis I provided some time ago.
Nope. Phil can claim what he likes about his "view" being "supported by the
text of TLP". But he, afair without rummaging through the archives, did
previously concede that his "view" is nowhere explicitly stated by W in the TLP
(or even perhaps elsewhere). If so, the text at best supports Phil's "view"
implicitly - but how so, as against the view that "elements" play a crucial
role in determining the sense of a proposition? What implicitly is there in the
TLP that decides in favour of Phil's "view"? Nothing I have so far noticed.
Question-begging assertions about the character of the text and its
implications are not, btw, "textual analysis" of the kind that shows the text
supports some view over another. They are just question-begging assertions.
Just as I have refreshed Phil about what he has previously said, perhaps he
might care draw my attention to the unequivocal support he finds in the text,
whether implicit or explicit.
On a point of logic: where a text is (equally?) consistent with either of two
interpretations it cannot _easily_ (if at all) be said to support one of those
interpretations as against the other. If this is the situation here with regard
to the TLP (as I suspect it might be), then Phil's whole reliance on "textual
analysis" as providing a resolution to the dispute is arguably misplaced.
> I look forward to Donal's engagement with the text of TLP.
O look: another troll. "Further engagement" might be non-trolly, but this is
not. And see "misplaced" above.
Donal
Salop
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
