The more I read about the so-called Wittgensteinian jurisprudence from the 1990s, the more I come to see what is wrong with philosophy. For what you have is a group of scholars hijacking Wittgenstein's name and promoting this idea that the language game is static and determined. They think the way you do it is: (a) collect (unearth) the norms in play; and (b) enforce the same as a criteria for what is acceptable or not. The idea that the game could have a dynamic feature to it and still be "Wittgensteinian" has never entered their minds. The idea that the forces that allow norms to form (and become "norms") might themselves be another strata or ingredient of the game has never crossed their minds. They think grammar is merely doing the same thing all over again. More to the point, reading these pieces makes one thing very, very clear: there is more orthodox dogmatism here -- more of a party line -- than one could ever imagine in actual orthodoxies, like, e.g., Communism. Surely Wittgenstein would have nothing to do with these intellectual endeavors and would have become depressed at the negative influence his teachings had upon lesser minds. Many of these scholars, by the way, are described as "post-modern." So here's what it boils down to. I come along and say: I have a new idea that I call Wittgensteinian jurisprudence. And another fellow says, "that's been done." Well, we have been stung in the language game. For the only thing that has been done heretofore is mischief. Honestly I know why I don't read journals. The answer is: it doesn't help me think better. Regards and thanks. Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq. Assistant Professor Wright State University Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org ; SSRN papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=596860 ; Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html _______________________________________________ Wittrs mailing list Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org