--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote: <snip> > > that LW later went beyong the TLP is true ... as a vague generality. > > but, since we are talking specifically about TLP 5.6, the question is > whether LW ever transcended this particular insight. can you cite a > passage from PI (or any work subsequent to TLP) where (according to you) > LW retracts, discredits or disowns TLP 5.6? > > Joe How typical of you! Since I never said anything about the particular citation you gave us, except to make the point that, since Wittgenstein left the TLP behind, there was little reason to cite material from the TLP to deny or disqualify points he made in his later work (as you did when you made your rather snippy recent reference to the "ordinary language sports bar"), there is no reason for me to respond to your demand that I support a putative claim which I never made, i.e., that he specifically retracted the statement you reference in the TLP. Isn't this rather like the silliness we went through when you insisted I support a claim I hadn't made about Dennett but which you imagined I had made? Or one about Searle, if memory serves (as you formerly claimed I was accusing Searle of being a property dualist, no doubt because that IS what some of his critics accuse him of, even though that wasn't my point at all). Anyway, suffice it to say that your latest demand is off track yet again, just as many of your prior ones have been. SWM ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/