[lit-ideas] Re: Ownership and the possessive case
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 18:39:12 EDT
In a message dated 5/6/2009 6:13:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Warum nicht du Deutsch schriebt? Keine Probleme. Kein Kampf.
"Wie Ludwig Wittgenstein Karl Popper mit dem Feuerhaken drohte. Eine
Ermittlung. " (Faber)
Versteht?
Es tut mir leid. Fur alles. Besser rot als tot aber besser tot als...
----
Well, yes, and since you wrote to him (in English) *to Popper I mean, and
he replied to you, in English, perhaps I should confess to my not thinking
his phrase was too colloquial as far as English phrases go,
"Thus it was that Wittgenstein came to be brandishing the poker, whereupon
Popper made his now famous response to Chairman Russell's request for an
example of moral rule under the heading of ethics:
"Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers"".
"It is then suggested, though accounts of the incident vary according to
the viewpoint of the perceiver, that an angry Wittgenstein who up to this
moment had brandished the offending weapon (nobody seems to remember in which
hand) threw it to the ground ..."
First, it is ungrammatical,
"not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers".
There was only _one_ poker in view.
Warnock should defend Witters here. Warnock (in his brilliant "Metaphysics
in Logic" in A. G. N. Flew, Essays in Conceptual Analysis, never reprinted
elsewhere) writes:
"If I have only one book I can say, truly, "Some of my books
are very interesting""
As R. Paul says, if you do not want to sound authoritative, look for the
context:
nicht zu zretten visitand lekturen mit feuerhaken
--- That _would_ have pleased one Jewish person in the room (the rich one,
Witters). But instead, he had to endure a strong-accented ungrammatical
thing, as uttered (to please, perhaps Russell).
"Chairman Russell's request for an example of moral rule under the heading
of ethics:
"Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers"".
I can imagine that Bertie's question was:
not:
"I request for an example of moral rule under the heading of ethics."
More colloquially could be,
"such as...?"
in the context where Popper (not yet Sir) was babbling such.
And then he looked intensely at Witters (and they both knew that each
other spoke German):
"Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers"
As opposed to _non-visiting_ lecturers? The 'visiting' is _not_ otiose; it
is insulting.
Was he being a ------- (slang term for coward).
The universalizable 'rule' under the heading _ethics_ *cannot* mention
definite descriptors like 'poker'. Ethics is about _more Generic_ things. The
rule, if any, would be:
"threats forbidden" -- verbotten -- period.
It is imaginable that Wittgenstein felt offended.
Grice writes re: 'threatening' in "From the banal to the bizarre: method
in philosophical psychology', section last. An action, like a movement,
_may_ be interpreted as a _threat_ but it may not. It's obvious that Popper
was
ill-willed in judging Witters to be _threatening_ him (i.e. Popper) with a
'feuerhaken'. The implication (or 'implicature' if you must) is:
"This queer fellow here -- scares me"
I cannot imagine how the 'symposium' ended. Was a chairman needed?
"Russell, who was up on the speaker's platform smoking his pipe, ..."
NON-Healthy.
Speaker's platform? These brits cannot hold a friendly meeting without
calling it a symposium, or sym-smoking, if you must.
And you call that 'a threshold of philosophy'????
Not surprised Popper was never invited to Oxford, or Witters.
Cheers,
JLS
**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
