5 ms·
I think you're creating a straw-man here and end up proving jsomers's point. You jump on the delicacy of the language and that's the point. jsomers doesn't arg
by straiberman 18y ago
I think you're creating a straw-man here and end up proving jsomers's point.
You jump on the delicacy of the language and that's the point. jsomers doesn't argue _about_ this particular law, he was only giving an example on how pushing and pulling language can have direct pragmatic purposes and real political ramifications.
The point is that since law is mired in language, exploring language becomes an incredibly relevant task and pg's criticism seems to ignore this important function.
- qqq 18y agoYou say jsomers is defending analytic philosophy in this section. Later jsomers says philosophy was bad but has reformed. So on the one hand he defends old philosophy. And on the other he claims philosophy was bad, but is OK now because it has reformed. These defenses are incompatible.
- agentcoops 18y agoI think the reformation to which he refers would be the advent of modern, analytic philosophy at the turn of the century through the works of Russell, Moore, Frege, and Wittgenstein. If so, the two claims are equivalent.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- qqq 18y agoYou're saying Wittgenstein is part of reformed philosophy, not bad philosophy? I don't know about that: http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~luke_manning/tractatus/tractatus-jsnav.html http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~luke_manning/tractatus/tractatus-j... 1 The world is everything that is the case. * 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. 1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts. 1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case. 1.13 The facts in logical space are the world. 1.2 The world divides into facts. 1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same.
- agentcoops 18y agoI'm saying that Wittgenstein /contributed/ to the advent of modern analytic or formal philosophy; an indisputable claim. While I have a spot in my heart for the Tractatus (if nothing else the method of truth tables in logic was co-invented within its pages, not to mention "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"), I'm not defending it and its solipsistic position/obfuscated style per se.
- qqq 18y agoHow did his nonsense contribute to other people writing sense? Who was influenced by Wittgenstein then wrote sense?
- gruseom 18y agoI have great respect for Wittgenstein, certainly far more than for the myriad of analytical philosophers I read a long time ago who all "wrote sense" (comparatively speaking) and all of whom I've forgotten.
- qqq 18y agoThat's wonderful. Perhaps you, as a Wittgenstein buff, would be so kind as to explain how the Wittgenstein quote I gave above, which at first glance appears to be nonsense, is in fact respectable and worthwhile thinking? I don't get it; enlighten me.
- gruseom 18y agoIt's always hard to judge tone online, but yours appears sarcastic and indicative of petty sparring rather than anything I would enjoy.
- qqq 18y agoYour post had no content. It made a bald assertion that ignored what had been said before. I would genuinely like it if you posted some actual content, and I hoped to indirectly encourage you in that direction. The tone is from a book I've been reading today (The Diamond Age).