undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxenophanes16y ago0 comments

I didn't say his character was relevant to his philosophy. I do think it's notable. Just like, say, Bertrand Russel's attitude to nuclear disarmament was notable. Is it relevant to whether his philosophy is true? Of course not. But should we forget about it and never mention it? No again.

As to Tractatus, if you want to discuss it more can you give a quote from the book that you consider to have value? Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

0 comments

hnhg16y ago

I also heard that Bertrand Russell exhorted the post-war US and UK governments to launch pre-emptive strikes on the USSR before they got nuclear weapons. It makes for quite a contrast with his later pacifist stance.

joecode16y ago

"There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical."

wynand16y ago

> Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

That burden is on you, since you made the original assertion.

xenophanesOP16y ago

You are expecting me to cite the lack of something? How?

wynand16y ago

That doesn't let you off the hook.

You could say about anything "show me one place where x has value". In such a position, you'd always be able to dispute any point raised.

If you really believe that there is nothing of value in the Tractatus, then you should give a short summary of what you think it is about and why you don't think it has any value.

With such a summary, it's possible to have a debate, since your assertions can be challenged.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsxenophanes16y ago0 comments

0 comments

hnhg16y ago

joecode16y ago

"There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical."

wynand16y ago

> Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

That burden is on you, since you made the original assertion.

xenophanesOP16y ago

You are expecting me to cite the lack of something? How?

wynand16y ago

That doesn't let you off the hook.

You could say about anything "show me one place where x has value". In such a position, you'd always be able to dispute any point raised.

If you really believe that there is nothing of value in the Tractatus, then you should give a short summary of what you think it is about and why you don't think it has any value.

With such a summary, it's possible to have a debate, since your assertions can be challenged.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse