3 ms·
> 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.
by wynand 17y 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.
- xenophanes 17y agoYou are expecting me to cite the lack of something? How?
- wynand 17y agoThat 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.
- xenophanes 17y agoDo you think it has value? What value? Why are you refusing to make a substantive comment? Given your refusal, why should I make a second one? Yes, debating who should go first is stupid. So why are you doing it? (I am doing it, now, b/c I am curious why you take this approach.)
- rms 17y agoI think the problem is that wynand didn't make the original reply to you, he just inserted himself into the debate without saying anything substantial.