[lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein v Popper on language acquisition
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:55:41 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: David Ritchie <profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>
>It's a long, and rather dull conversation, about who has better-looking hair
>than Wayne Rooney and whether City can win the premier league.
Without suggesting this theory* can be empirically falsified, the tone in which
it is conveyed might suggest disappointment that their choice of topics did not
show more maturity, reflection and insight. Yet how can we expect people to
show these qualities when kept half-naked and fed at set times like animals in
a zoo? It is the cruel laughter of one of them that disturbs, portending a time
when victim becomes perpetrator, and what were once harmless spurtings of
irrepressible banality become the bloodsoaked spurtings of violent savagery.
D
Near Gareth Marenghi's Dark Place
Ldn
*Other theories might examine the sense of the language-game they engage in (if
there is any sense and any language-game); or what the two are doing in "trial
and error" terms [this being what a Popperian theory might here seek to
explain].
Other related posts:
