Re: [Wittrs] The Language Game of Professional Philosopher
- From: Han Geurdes <han.geurdes@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:06:05 +0200
Hi Sean,
If I may. It does not matter whether e.g. Wittgenstein was a
professional philospher. I think he would even disliked the idea of
being one.
We read Philosophical Investigations. First perhaps because of its
title but then because of what is in the book.
Wittgenstein and Russel were succesful because of what they thought
and in this sense we also may wonder whether Socrates was a
professional philosopher. Still we honour Socrates as a philosopher.
Moreover, the famous Richard paradox was invented by Jean Richard a
school teacher.
I mean,...., A points at B and says 'This is a professional
philosopher'. Then I ask the question 'Shouldn't there be a white long
beard ?'
Monthy Python type of a topic you are involved in.
Best
Han
On 16/04/2012, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ... here's a good one. Let's imagine Wittgenstein was a professor of
> linguistics doing work in linguistic theory. But let's suppose the work he
> did was the exact same as it was in history (same body of work). So he meets
> Russell and does the same exact stuff, but his degree and professorship is
> in linguistics.
>
> Question: would Wittgenstein be a "professional philosopher?"
>
> Because of the novel way he did philosophy, along with his formal
> credential, I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would say "no." My
> only point is this: such a position only says what it does and not a thing
> more. It doesn't stop another from saying "yes he is" -- so long as each
> knows the facts of the case (who Wittgenstein is and what he is doing).
> That's the key: any problem here is false. One merely needs to make sure
> that the person understands certain facts and not be concerned how they talk
> about them. And if anyone gets into a yes-no fight, the point of
> "philosophy" is only to show each that the matter concerns only the SENSE of
> "professional philosopher" that they prefer to use.
>
>
> In a lay sense, anyone who goes to work in a field of theory could be spoken
> of as a professional theorist or philosopher. But in a strict sense, one
> would have to be doing the work sanctioned inside the club, by one of its
> members.
>
>
> Let's say, after my book, Wright State makes my appointment in both
> departments (Philosophy and Politicology) and I teach 1 Wittgenstein
> course permanently. Would I be a "professional philosopher" even in Walter's
> sense of the idea? I imagine not. Walter would probably speak of these
> facts differently than others, because of his outlook about the club and its
> business.
>
> It's no different from the language game of asking whether X is a patriot of
> his country.
>
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "walto" <Philscimind@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was actually focusing on "professional" but thanks anyhow.
>>
>> W
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
