[Wittrs] Re: Attention Brendan!
- From: brendan downs <downs_brendan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:16:05 +1200
I think I fit the requirement that (a) I am knowledgeable of W. I'm afraid I
don't understand why duckrabbit with a frame of Jackie Chan is a mistake, if It
doesn't suit you tastes it could be substituted for any vid. My duckrabbit is
an EXACT example of Wittgenstein method and Questions. In no way does it
disrespects W ideas. It is an exellecent example of Socratic midwifery(method)
and a leading question. also of Pyrrhonian scepticism(Pyro wrote a list of
books e.g. scepticism about definitions, mathematics ,knowledge etc and showed
us when framed lead to an infinite regress.) Also a great example of paradox's.
Set up a logical paradox and put these examples into the equation and we
Philosophical investigations. This can serve as benefit to a reader to grasp W
ideas and enlighten him. I think this also answers (b). I don't think his ideas
are foolish because they illustrate the above.
Are you asking us to praise W? or to investigate his ideas? I think i'm doing
both, 1. if it thought it was nonsense I wouldn't be investigating it and this
is praise.
and I do apologise if my conclusions offend you.
Maybe you could solicit some more professors into the group some how. Maybe
start the ball rolling by inviting more of your colleagues from Wright State
and other Universitys. I like the idea of building sound infrastructure and
would like to suggest maybe emailing the different groups as well.
Thanks
Brendan
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:57:43 -0700
From: whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: Attention Brendan!
To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
_________________________________________________________________
Find a way to cure that travel bug MSN NZ Travel
http://travel.msn.co.nz/
Other related posts:
