[Wittrs] Re: My Chinese Encyclopedia: The Red Chicken Footnote
- From: "College Dropout John O'Connor" <sixminuteabs@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:09:43 -0400
"He said that he had always regarded his lectures as a form of publication"
-Norman Malcolm, 48, Memoir
If you don't think you have to quote a man you are making claims for, then all
I can say is that your claims are unfounded. And if that isn't a clear
tautology, well ellipses and stuff.
I am not interested in what textbooks say. I find it quite easy to quote the
man; I read a little bit, see something that relates to our discussion, and
stick a scrap piece of paper in the book at that page. I dunno why you say the
things you do and act as if you have proved a point; if you think quoting in
philosophy is religious fanaticism, then allow me to refer you to
philpapers.org; I've quoted Wittgenstein, Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Ernest
Hemmingway, etc. I may not be in college, but I still know how to back up a
claim; I can only hope that you don't fall into the following category:
"Apart from other things, I think that there was indeed something in the
content of his philosophy that, improperly assimilated, had and still has an
unfortunate effect on those influenced by it. I refer to his conception that
words are not used with 'fixed' meanings, that concepts do not have 'sharp
boundaries'. This teaching, I believe, produced a tendency in his students to
assume that precision and thoroughness were not required in their own thinking.
From this tendency nothing but slovenly philosophical work could result."
-Norman Malcolm, 53, Memoir
I have been saying that 'mind' is nonsense, and so is a lot of other stuff; and
there is no point in differentiating nonsense (and I've quoted W on this
matter). But treating nonsense like the bubonic plague is not my intention.
Simply, nonsense is not scientific. W says the TLP is nonsense (and
philosophers tend to say the TLP is a contradictory) and I thought I showed
that well enough, and also why it is tautological (not contradictory). I've
given the example of how the world was created in 6 days by God, according to
the Bible, and that no one knows how long those days are, according to the
Bible; It is complete nonsense and the 'Beetle in the Box' shows how these days
could be of varying length or even constantly changing, etc. When I gave this
sort of example before, you didn't seem to have a problem with it (or, at
least, you didn't say much on it). I don't think I quoted the Bible in that
topic, but I did a little quote from the opening lines in this topic and !
you seemed to have a lot to say about translating languages and the numbered
verses, etc. And you seem to accuse me of some things while using some
nonsense words (and, going by what I've been saying, I cannot reply to nonsense
with agreement or disagreement). I must say that if you think I (or W) is
about hierarchies, you have simply misunderstood.
If W can write the opening lines of the Bible without mentioning 'creation' or
'God' or 'Heaven', I do not know why you wish to speak to me about 'deities' or
'minds' or 'infinities'. I hope I have made it clear that if I am to say
anything about those words, it is that they are nonsense.
However, applying the notions of language-games to the evolution of religions
doesn't seem too far out. Language-games are sometimes used as a notion for
comparative theology. Maybe there are other applications, but applications
would be significant. And this goes back to whether a+b=c is true or false or
nonsense.
But here I am stuck (for the moment :p ). I wish to say something about
applications. 1+2=3 comes to mind, and so too does apple+pine=pineapple.
Maybe the 'verification principle' would do good here. It seems to me, at
least, that it may be related to the good old quote, "Back to rough ground!"
Have you seen modern art? Don't you know the shuttle is being retired while
the top scientists are looking for the reality particle? I cannot tell the
difference between democrats and republicans these days, nor the policies they
implement. Back to rough ground indeed! Citizens seem to vote and not read
the constitution; sure, they are taught it in grade school, but never read it.
From what I have heard, this is not unlike how the Catholic Church operates.
At the least, I hope you don't go taking classes on Wittgenstein. /rant
You continually insist that what W has said in anything but the PI is
irrelevant (or maybe you think Oc is good too, and what of Remarks on Color?),
and you have not backed this claim up; W did say something about the TLP and
PI's relationship, and it was that the PI could only be understood in the light
of understanding the TLP-- and this is very much like the introduction to the
PR.
I don't know what you do for a living; I have merely a part-time job and so
read a plenty, and have always read. Is it too much of an assumption to say
you have less time for studies than I? I do indeed hope you take time in
posting your next reply (maybe a read a little to back your up your claims); if
there is any testament on these boards, it is that this back-and-forth dribble
can become silly rather quickly.
Good Luck and other nonsense,
John O
--
He had a wonderful life.
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
