[lit-ideas] Re: ordnance
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:30:28 -0700
Omar writes
I don't know about Wittgensteinians but much of what Wittgenstein says
seems either nonsensical or trivial to me.
*This is an interesting psychological fact about you, perhaps, but it would
help your readers tremendously if you would cite some passages from the
*Investigations* you find 'nonsensical or trivial'—and why you do, for as
an argument it's a dubious beginning. At the extremes on a line reaching
between '2+2' = 4 and 'Reader, I married him,' there are probably a number
of nonsensical sentences, commentaries, theories, explanations,
simplifications,
interpretations, assertions and rebuttals.
If you could pick out one or two and provide a simple account of why
they're nonsensical or trivial (maybe they just appear nonsensical or
trivial) one might get a clearer picture of which things in the
Investigations you want to say are equally defective (and why you think so).
I don't mean this as a rude challenge; I'd just like to know which passages
in *PI** you find nonsensical/trivial, and why. So far, you haven't given
us much help.
Robert Paul
—————
*or possibly in the *Tractatus* or the *Blue *and* Brown Books. *The *Notebooks
1914-1916* may be too gnomic a source.
Robert Paul
Other related posts:
