From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:32:07 GMT
    <1992Apr8.143852.27915@unx.sas.com> 
    <1992Apr8.231033.2661@news.eng.convex.com>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 3313

In article <1992Apr8.231033.2661@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
|> 
|> I don't get it. You think Carnap is preferable to Wittgenstein? If so, why?

Sure.  Reasons obvious.  How much of Carnap have you read?  (Maybe a lot, but
I doubt that most others reading this thread have read much -- if any.  And most
who have any exposure to Carnap are exposed only to the very early stuff like
the Aufbau -- just a couple of the early fairly simplistic pieces to provide
a good and easy target for criticisms of the postivists' program.)

|> (Certainly, he's simpler.) What connections do you want to draw to Hume?

Simpler?  Well, if you mean more precise and understandable, yes.  Otherwise,
reading Carnap typically takes a lot better background than reading Wittgenstein
(even the philosophy of math stuff) since a lot of the subject-matter in
Carnap's writings is highly technical in either a mathematical or scientific
way.  You first have to understand that stuff before you can understand the
more general points Carnap is making, the problems he is concerned with, or
the solutions he is proposing.

Connections to Hume?  Shouldn't think this would be too obscure:  something
about committing volumes of metaphysics to the flames.

|> 
|> > Of course you
|> >need to be aware that these types of papers are not presented in
|> >the Sesame Street cum shopping-list style that Wittgenstein adopted
|> >post-Tractatus.
|> 
|> I gather you're trying to be insulting here. Don't you think we've done our
|> home work? 

I doubt that most people who read this newsgroup have done their homework in
the sense necessary to speak with authority on the history of philosophy -- even
of 20th century analytic philosophy.  No insult was intended -- just poking fun.
I can't get going too hot and heavy in history of philosophy.  It never was my
specialty, though I had to teach it a couple of times.

Wittgenstein is easy to read without thinking too much about it.  You convince
yourself there is something deep there.  Sometimes there is, but most often,
W was just too lazy to work out the details, so he threw these bones to his
worshipful followers -- most (or at least many) of which were nuttier than he was.
I do think at least somewhat highly of some of the W groupies:  von Wright (though
he never really fit in the group very well in the first place), and Geach.  I
even did a bachelor's thesis based largely on Anscombe.  I've done *my* homework --
more of it than I care to remember, to be honest.

When I was a sophomore I *really* liked Wittgenstein.  As a junior and senior I
became convinced that J. L. Austin was the only way to go.  By the end of my
senior year I began to feel it was all empty word games (certainly I think it's
true *of* Wittgenstein that everything is a language game).  In graduate school I
abandoned it entirely except of course for enough command of it to pass the required
tests.

People *should* read Wittgenstein -- as much of the original stuff as possible.
Wittgenstein's not all bad (not like, say, Heidegger), but there's a lot less
there than meets the eye.



-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm