[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 22:10:10 +0100
Actually it may be noted that I wrote Wittgenstenians, not Wottgenstein. I
meant those idiots.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Many thanks, I am sure that when Wittgenstein is shown to be wrong
> somewhere, it will be retorted that he never said it. I would hardly expect
> it to be otherwise.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> A comment of Omar's which apparently didn't make it through the first
>> time recurs in a later post;
>> I copy it here in case it should get lost again.
>>
>> 'Yeah, if philosophy is a language game as the Wittgensteins tell us,
>> where do people win or lose in it ? One might possibly think that they lose
>> when their arguments are refuted, but one hardly hears of any significant
>> philosopher being refuted on a matter of any importance. Possibly the
>> Wittgensteins might want to consult game theory to tell us what kind of
>> game it is that goes on forever without anyone visibly winning or losing.'
>>
>> I wonder just where Wittgenstein says this, or even hints at it. This
>> 'interpretation' of Wittgenstein's views—his views *somewhere*—could
>> scarcely be more misleading: it is simply *wrong*. Reading the *Philosophical
>> Investigations,* might be a first step in showing why it is.
>>
>> An English translation of the Investigations (with the translated German
>> text on facing pages),
>> can be found at
>>
>>
>> http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf
>>
>> This is the third English edition, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. It
>> differs from the first English edition, of 1953, only insofar as Anscombe
>> has corrected some of that edition's grammar and spelling.
>>
>> Robert Paul
>> Reed (formerly Mutton) College
>>
>> ——————————————
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
