Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
mickthinks wrote:In my experience, people who boast about being banned are usually hoping it'll happen again and end up going out of their way to make themselves unwelcome. I hope you aren't one of those, John.
mickthinks wrote:In my experience, people who boast about being banned are usually hoping it'll happen again and end up going out of their way to make themselves unwelcome. I hope you aren't one of those, John.
JohniJones wrote:I am Wittgenstein.
Oh dear, it isn't looking good right now ...
I agree with that. I'm sure I've seen this customer before on "alt.philosphy" - but he won't admit it.
If its the same guy then we have much more strangeness in store - I can't wait!
Makes no difference. Witt was always a logical mystic. This fed all his periods, more than merely "early" and "late" could show.
I've never heard him called that!
What do you mean ; mystic?
Witt was always a mystic. Finch quotes others as saying Witt often appeared "uncanny" and having "depth" in his treatment of ordinary matters and logic yet still remaining austerely logical.
Elsewhere, the word mystic can be taken in its ordinary sense, or you can philosophize it and say it is the conditions ("transcendental") for ordinary experience that isn't itself expressible by ordinary experience. e.g. Witt says that the conditions, hence ineffable or transcendental, for language, facts and logical syntax is "shown", and not merely hidden or void, which would be the anti-mystic view. I could go on.
I know what I am talking about. With me you get the complete package.
Witt was always a mystic. Finch quotes others as saying Witt often appeared "uncanny" and having "depth" in his treatment of ordinary matters and logic yet still remaining austerely logical.
Maybe you would like to give a full citation? "Uncanny" and having depth do not amount to "mystic".
As philosophies go Witt and Russell were about as far from mysticism as you can get. I remain surprised by you comments.
Elsewhere, the word mystic can be taken in its ordinary sense, or you can philosophize it and say it is the conditions ("transcendental") for ordinary experience that isn't itself expressible by ordinary experience. e.g. Witt says that the conditions, hence ineffable or transcendental, for language, facts and logical syntax is "shown", and not merely hidden or void, which would be the anti-mystic view. I could go on.
FUDGE FUDGE FUDGE.
Mystical in an "ordinary sense" would be something like " A person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.", and that is about as far away from Wittgenstein as you can get.
I know what I am talking about. With me you get the complete package.
Plonk!
Arising_uk wrote:Really!? Stick a photo up of yourself.
You won't see it spot for spot.
But the general presentation of face - handsome, the singular uplift of hair, the achy legs, the throat chakra probs, the stomach probs etc.
Witt went to Pontypridd, where I trained, to Cardiff, where I live, to Swansea, where I go for a day out. We both like Swansea. Swansea is nice.
I'm him alright.
Yeah born in Austria - just like you - got your professorship at Cambridge - just like you.- taught by Russell - just like you.
ANd remind me - was it you that calls himself a logical positivist?
ANd yeah Gay - just like you!
Yeah you are him alright.
I'm Spinoza - I was born on the anniversary of his death 21st February!!
