John, list,
Another invaluable post. Your being both a logician and philosopher of the
history of logic and certain facets of scientific philosophy (especially
19th and 20th century logic/philosophy), and being an avowed Peircean
pragmatist puts you in a unique position, in my view, for
Helmut and Stephen,
To interpret Wittgenstein (or any philosopher), it's essential to
consider all the issues and put them in context. As I said in my
previous comment, Russell and Carnap misunderstood the Tractatus.
They assumed that LW agreed with them that metaphysics, especially
theology,
John, Helmut,
John Sowa wrote:
The [dualities] that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.
A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of
I think Peirce has the answer in triadic thinking as opposed to the yes and
no that is the cultural expression of binary thinking. The maxim suggests
that ethics and esthetics have a role t play in conscious thought. THat has
immense implications.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Sat, Jun 2,
Stephen, John, list,
yes, thank you. I always wonder about this gap. In physics there is experimental physics and theoretical physics, but do they quarrel or disagree? No. They are trying to get along, and do (Higgs boson, dark matter...). But the philosophers, they still are split up, either
On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".
That was from the his first book, the Tractatus. He wrote that
while
Wittgenstein was making a point about "metaphysical" language for which
there was no scientific proof. It is the conclusion of his Tractatus. I
think he was suggesting such language is inevitably incapable of grasping
what remains a mystery. He knew of course that most speech is not
responsive to
Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter
John, list,
maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot
On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
Supplement: Maybe too, I suffer from disharmonyphopia, or am harmony-addicted, so always look for compatibility instead of contradiction. And I like Noam Chomsky.
John, list,
In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their
John, list,
In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their theories. On one hand I understand that, because I have felt something like that too, against Skinner and his behaviourism. Not to speak of Nietzsche, his resentful
12 matches
Mail list logo
