I suspect that it was a quotation. O.K: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 6:46 PM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote: If English was good enuff for Jesus Christ, why not also for palma?? Cheers, Walter Quoting palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>: > l'unico aspetto di non locale o periferica irrilevanza e' l'intonarsi > del "*t'adoriam > ostia divina, t'adoriam ostia d'amor", *come alquanto decentralizzante sia > l'impatto del wittgensteinismo di tardo ritorno. alcuni sostennero persino > che tutto cio' che rimase di questa chiacchera senza fine sia parkagsse, 19 > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Donal McEvoy > <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > > > "The recent 'discussions' here of Wittgenstein's 'sense of humour' seem a > > bit thin and jejune, in light of his serious interest in the subject of > > humour." > > > > They may be thin and jejune but so is this remark: Robert's post does > > not really begin to say what position W had on humour (I suspect W did not > > think the fundamentals of his position on humour could be said, but that's > > another story); and the W remark about a Germany where humour was stamped > > out also seems thin and jejune - can one really easily imagine a society > > where humour is stamped out but the spirits of people are high [try to > > imagine, as W elsewhere urges, "in a real case"]? Also Robert does not > even > > begin to indicate how W's "serious interest" in humour overlapped with > what > > W took have philosophical importance: we know W took "serious interest" in > > designing a house but does that mean he thought this was of any > > philosophical importance? This last point is of particular importance > > because "recent 'discussions'" focused on whether there was humour in W's > > philosophical work: that W cracked a joke or laughed at one, or even had a > > "serious interest" in humour (of some unfleshed-out kind), serves only as > a > > (dare one say) thin and jejune basis for determining whether there is > > humour in his major philosophical works. > > > > Donal > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 22 February 2014, 3:46, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Wittgenstein not only had a sense of humour but thought a lot about > > humour and the human condition. Some of what he thought is captured in > > pages 528--533, of Monk's *Wittgenstein: the Duty of Genius.* Much of > > what's there is expository, but Wittgenstein himself sometimes speaks. One > > important aspect of Wittgenstein's thinking about humour is that he > > believed that an understanding of it was close to an understanding of > > music. (Apparently much of this is expressed in *Culture and Value*--which > > I keep meaning to read.) > > > > His well-known wit is another story. > > > > 'Humour is not a mood but a way of looking at the world,' [he] wrote > > while he was in Rosro,* 'So if it is correct to say that humour was > > stamped out in Nazi Germany, that does not mean that people were not in > > good spirits, or anything of that sort, but something much deeper and more > > important.' To understand what that 'something' is it would perhaps be > > instructive to look at humour as something strange and incomprehensible. > > > > *Rosro, Norway > > > > The recent 'discussions' here of Wittgenstein's 'sense of humour' seem a > > bit thin and jejune, in light of his serious interest in the subject of > > humour. > > > > Robert Paul > > (Is that my toothache, or yours?) > > > > > > > > > -- > palma, e TheKwini, KZN > > > > > > > > > > > > > palma > > cell phone is 0762362391 > > > > > *only when in Europe*: > > inst. J. Nicod > > 29 rue d'Ulm > > f-75005 paris france > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html