[lit-ideas] Re: Ownership and the possessive case
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:59:03 EDT
In a message dated 5/6/2009 7:13:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
it's humorous ... That Wittgenstein may have taken this as a personal
insult of some kind is of course possible. It may also be that Wittgenstein
had
a disdainful view of Popper's intellect and found the whole fiasco tested
his patience beyond endurance).
----
I see.
There are two defenses here. One for Popper, one for Witters.
For Popper.
I grant it _is_ difficult, out of the blue, to provide an example of this
or that. I think Bertie is to blame here. If the question did include
anything like the report:
"his now famous response to Chairman
Russell's request for an example of
moral rule under the heading of ethics."
Shouldn't that be "an example of _a_ moral rule..."?
Also I find the repetition of 'moral' and 'ethics' otiose.
In Russell's defence, the tone mattered. D. S. M. Wilson (who studied
under Grice) calls this 'pretense 'scare quote' ironic tone':
Bertie: And what would _be_, in your opinion, a, as you call them
_moral rule_ under the 'heading' of, as you call it, ethics?
I suppose Sir Karl just came up with what he had in view: a poker-attacker.
Mind, possibly those profs laughed. A lot of teachers _work_ for the
laughs. So, Witters could possibly have felt _doubly_ insulted by the Popper
fiasco in providing a more thought-out example, and the fact that he was being
made the laughing stock of people.
Perhaps he was expecting something like:
"Sodomy is not a bad thing after all, in the proper setting".
etc.
------
Popper and Witters were thinking of 'regeln' (rules) but 'moral rule' is an
oxymoron in English. There are no rules of the moral game. It's not a
game.
Note that however specific, Popper's example was _too_ specific. It is not
addressed to rational agents (per se) but 'members of the class of people
who feel at home in Room H-3, with a poker'. As I said earlier, 'threaten'
is not a verb that may play a role in a 'moral rule'. It's _hate_ speech, or
at most. A threat has to be an act. If he was _insinuating_ that someone
in the room (holding a poker) was being _threatening_ it _is_ an insult, and
no rule of the 'moral game' is going to 'tone down' the agitation.
"You don't threaten people like that".
Were they thinking Witters was a _boy_ that needed reprimanding?
Now, if the 'moral' rule wants to be given some sense, suppose I organise a
party in H-3, and the visiting lecturer is a homophobic racist pig
chauvinist of a water-board torturer'.
Is 'threaten' _always_ wrong? I can imagine someone saying:
"You've just unloaded the biggest load of crap I heard and
you're not going to get away with murder. I threaten
more insidious actions unless you shut up _NOW_."
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:
