Prev: Let us reduce the speed of light
Next: Why (ex Elimination) so complicated? (SEP)
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 21 Nov 2009 22:38
John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes:

>> Assuming, of course, that you really did submit a thesis proposal, as
>> you claimed. You didn't forget, did you?
>>
>
> I did submit it. No beef.

What does "no beef" mean? That the proposal was accepted?

--
"Civilizations have risen and crumbled as my people fight your people,
and still it remains the same old battle. I come from a line that
mostly walks alone, fighting for the truth against people [like you],
but my people always win." -- James S. Harris
From: John Jones on 21 Nov 2009 22:43
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes:
>
>>> Assuming, of course, that you really did submit a thesis proposal, as
>>> you claimed. You didn't forget, did you?
>>>
>> I did submit it. No beef.
>
> What does "no beef" mean? That the proposal was accepted?
>

I proposed Kant to Cardiff and Witt to Southampton. Both were accepted
on principle. I just have to take up the offer.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 21 Nov 2009 23:09
John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Assuming, of course, that you really did submit a thesis proposal, as
>>>> you claimed. You didn't forget, did you?
>>>>
>>> I did submit it. No beef.
>>
>> What does "no beef" mean? That the proposal was accepted?
>>
>
> I proposed Kant to Cardiff and Witt to Southampton. Both were accepted
> on principle. I just have to take up the offer.
>

Well, on the one hand, congrats.

On the other hand, if your writing here is any indication, this is a
dismal symptom of the current state of philosophy and that's a darn
shame.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"But regardless of my goofs, my reality of journals is different from
ANY of yours, as they just treat me in a special way."
-- James S. Harris
From: pbamvv on 22 Nov 2009 08:37
On 22 nov, 01:53, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> In the mature Witt. there is a split between logic and grammar, between
> syntax and organizing principle of the elements of syntax.
>
> It wasn't as Hinttika said - that Witt's major development (1929), was
> about changing from a phenomenological language to a physicalist one,
> but it was Witt's distinction that bore fruition in his idea of
> "language-games") between organizing principles and their elements (and
> the "language of elements" which we call "syntax").
>
> "Language-games" was just such an organizing principle of elements. The
> elements that were manifested by this principle were ostension and
> rules. The latter marked Wittgenstein's continued struggle (up to
> Philosophical Investigations) to recognise the distinction he eventually
> arrived at - the distinction between logic/syntax and organizing
> principle. The latter saw rudimentary mention in the Tractatus as
> "showing". But later, a naturalism took hold and he developed the idea
> "language games". But the general idea of a game or organizing principle
> was not satisfactorily recovered by Witt., I think, but was left to only
> brief insight and particular examples to deliver.
>
> This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
> pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
> that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
> mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
> of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
> and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.

Dear John,

As a matter of fact this is probably very interesting to atheists like
myself. Principally languiage cannot be defined as something purely
logical but should be consifered as a result of natural selection.
Indeed Wittgenstein almost stumbled on the meme theory!

If language had been created instead of having evolved the
problems Wiitgenstein encountered might not have existed.

Love,

Peter van Velzen
November 2009
Amstelveen
The Netherland
From: Errol on 24 Nov 2009 07:21
On Nov 22, 2:53 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
> pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
> that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
> mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
> of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
> and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.

His view denies the physicalist requirement for the existance of
structures or processes that might be responsible for thought in the
brain without providing an acceptable alternative.
I deny his view.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Let us reduce the speed of light
Next: Why (ex Elimination) so complicated? (SEP)