Prev: Let us reduce the speed of light
Next: Why (ex Elimination) so complicated? (SEP)
From: John Jones on 21 Nov 2009 19:53
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.
From: John Jones on 21 Nov 2009 21:16
John Jones 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.

Bloody good post that.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 21 Nov 2009 21:58
John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes:

> John Jones 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.
>
> Bloody good post that.

Oh, yes! Another 200 pages written just like that, and they'll call
you "Dr." and everything!

Assuming, of course, that you really did submit a thesis proposal, as
you claimed. You didn't forget, did you?

--
"There are people [...] who think it's socially acceptable to level
accusations of mental illness in insulting exchanges to make
points[...] [They] are rather sick [them]selves, and in reality, are
sociopathic." --- James Harris, evidently a self-described sociopath
From: John Jones on 21 Nov 2009 22:03
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> John Jones 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.
>> Bloody good post that.
>
> Oh, yes! Another 200 pages written just like that, and they'll call
> you "Dr." and everything!
>
> 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.
From: bigfletch8 on 21 Nov 2009 22:30
On Nov 22, 11:03 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> > John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> writes:
>
> >> John Jones 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.
> >> Bloody good post that.
>
> > Oh, yes!  Another 200 pages written just like that, and they'll call
> > you "Dr." and everything!
>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your critics may suggest you 'need' beef, for the b12 ;-)

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