[Wittrs] Re: Attention Brendan!
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Brendan.
You might want to take note of a couple of things. This list isn't a normal
philosophy list. It's really kind of a unique thing. The only people who are
allowed in here are people who: (a) are inspired by, knowledgeable of, or
curious about Wittgenstein; and (b) see Wittgenstein as a polar star in the
intellectual universe. Part (b) simply means
that one finds Wittgenstien's ideas to be important and substantial to
intellectual culture, even if they happen to disagree with him or see him as
mistaken. So the only way you are permitted to be here is if you fit (a) and
(b). Please note that we make exceptions for people who are just curious about
Wittgenstein. Such persons obviously could not meet (b)'s requirements.
The only people who we exclude from membership, therefore, are people who
dislike Wittgenstein personally or believe his ideas foolish and irrelevant, or
who don't know anything about his ideas and are content staying that way.
That's why we are called "Wittrs." We formed ourselves as a group because we
believed that Wittgenstein-learned and appreciative people make a more
insightful discussion envioronment (when talking about anything at all).
Do you believe that you meet our definition for membership?
Also, we've never dealt with this issue before, but it may come up in the
future. I suppose that when we created the group, we had Wittgenstein II in
mind. It would be very interesting if someone was a Tractatus-only lover and
who thought latter Wittgenstein to be, e.g., "senile Wittgenstein." (I once had
a professor who was a Russell fan who thought that. He met Russell personally.
That's the way he referred to Ludwig's later works). Anyway, the point is
this: would such a person qualify for membership? I really don't know the
answer. I guess it would depend upon if they understood latter Wittgenstein
well enough and had simply rejected those ideas. That qualifies no matter
whether they were Tractatus freaks. But if one were to be dismissive of latter
Wittgenstein without sufficient understanding of those ideas -- and content not
to investigate them -- I imagine such a person would not fit our idea.
I only bring this up so that you understand what kind of group we are. And just
to be clear, there are all sorts of "open admission" discussion groups on the
web. One of them that many of us came from is called Analytic. If you are
interested in discussing, that is an option for you, too. Here's the link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analytic/ ;
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Redesigned Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Twitter: http://twitter.com/seanwilsonorg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/seanwilsonorg
New Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
________________________________
From: brendan downs <downs_brendan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:28:06 PM
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: Attention Brendan!
i'm not to familiar as being an indepth scholar of W as of yet but I am
inspired/learned in the sense that I think all philosophy is conceptual
analysis, anything else i consider science or sociology. I'm not sure what post
analytic or post wittgenstein is other then a form of post modernisn and i
would justify this in saying it is an attempt to turn back the hands of time.
What philosophy means to me is "linguistic philosophy" and that conceptual
analysis is the method and logic is the tool.
Regards Brendan.
Other related posts: