[Wittrs] Re: [quickphilosophy] Re: Next Up
- From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Walter:
The property we're looking at is very nice, except for the fact that the
current tenants have made quite a mess of the structures. We'll see what
happens. It's time to milk the rewards...or pay the price. I'm not sure which!
OK on "W. on Rules and Private Language" as a choice. The only thing I have
against it is that it has been hashed over quite well by the
wittgenstein-dialognet group a couple of times. Kripke did not convince many
people of the correctness of his interpretation of Wittgenstein on PL. However,
he really did convince quite a few people that a Millian theory of reference
was correct and that things like necessary a posteriori propositions can be
given. So, I would urge a review of N&N. Who has the guts to cover *that*?
Maybe yourself, because you've just perambulated it once more, but maybe it
should be farmed off to a novice.
But, you know, I could go for McTaggart too! Why is the world like Frege's
logic and not like McTaggart's and Hegel's logic? Did we receive any argument
for that already? Actually, I like Hegel, even though I'm repeatedly accused of
being a logical positivist.
Thanks!
--Ron
--- On Tue, 8/17/10, walto <calhorn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
From: walto <calhorn@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [quickphilosophy] Re: Next Up
To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 6:58 PM
Property in the Sierra foothills sounds very nice, Ron: I envy you.
I'm OK with reading the Kripke lecture (although I happened to re-read it not
too long ago). As a matter of fact, I was going to suggest Kripke's book on
the private language argument as a possibility, myself. One advantage of
"Naming and Necessity" is that it's possible to find a free version on line.
Since we've gotten into the issue of "what next?" another suggestion I have is
McTaggart's "Human Immortality and Pre-existence" which is also available free
(at Google books). I'm attracted to that work because (i) McTaggart is
interesting, clever, original, and extremely lucid for a Hegelian; (ii) it's
both short (under 60 pages, I think) and free; (iii) the issue of surviving
death is kind of important, especially to geezers like me; (iv) McT. has a
bunch of arguments in it about (of all things) primary and secondary qualities
and the nature of perception; (v) McT. was a Cambridge apostle buddy of Moore
and Russell, at one time convincing both of them of the truth of idealism and
the ontological argument; and (vi) he was for all his mysticism, idealism, and
belief in immortality and the importance of love, a staunch atheist.
The other suggestion I was planning to make (besides the Kripke book on W) is
the Fodor paper Budd suggested. Like all of Fodor's stuff, it's beautifully
written, funny, and fun to read, and top it off, it's a refutation of an entire
century. Plus, it too can be found on-line.
If people want to continue, I think we could plan to read all of these (except
maybe the book that has to be bought) and just settle on an order
W
--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ron Allen <wavelets@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Walter:
> Â
> I have some wrap-up remarks on the TLP to make, but just haven't had the
> time; we're trying to buy some property in the Sierra foothills right now,
> and I'm half-crazy from driving across the state every weekend.
> Â
> The Tractatus is a particularly difficult and inaccessible text. I saw a lot
> of things in this read that I hadn't before, and that will probably happen
> about the same way for the next six times I read it. Anyway, I think it's
> good that we hammered at a few of the central issues and even got to the end
> of it, albeit by great leaps and bounds.
> Â
> As a candidate Next Up, how about Kripke's "Naming and Necessity"? A classic
> modern text with some very flashy and controversial conclusions. Quick
> Philosophy not Quit Philosophy. And, what would it say if after we read the
> TLP, and Wittgenstein has shown thereby that all philosophy is utterly
> pointless, that we give up the discussion group?Â
> Â
> Let's not abandon ship just yet. Then too, maybe some tail-ender discussions
> on the TLP will arise.
> Â
> Thanks!
> --Ron
>
> --- On Tue, 8/17/10, walto <calhorn@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: walto <calhorn@...>
> Subject: [quickphilosophy] Next Up
> To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 3:54 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> If nobody has anything further to say about the Tractatus, I will tomorrow
> make my suggestions for possible a second read, and also ask for (i)
> additional suggestions, and (ii) whether this group should continue at all or
> be deep-sixed. It may be that we have not hit a "tipping point" in members or
> that the members we have are already over-committed to other groups, or that
> the Tractatus was simply not interesting enough or too well understood
> already to sustain much confab. But if I'm going to have to make 3/4 or more
> of the posts on every book and so few comments (regardless of who makes them)
> get any response at all, my sense is that we don't have critical mass or
> sufficient interest to continue.
>
> If any of you DO want to continue with community reads of philosophy books in
> which you have some interest, I recommend that you try to get a philosophy
> friend or two (who is/are not either nuts or overly aggressive) to sign up!
>
> Best,
>
> W
>
Other related posts:
