Philosophy Now Forum

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.

mickthinks wrote:

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 ...

JohniJones wrote: I am Wittgenstein.

JohniJones wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

JohniJones wrote:I naturally take, without study, a Wittgensteinian perspective.
...

How would you know this without study?

I am Wittgenstein.

Impenitent wrote:early or late?

-Imp

JohniJones wrote:

Impenitent wrote:early or late?

-Imp

Makes no difference. Witt was always a logical mystic. This fed all his periods, more than merely "early" and "late" could show.

JohniJones wrote:Makes no difference. Witt was always a logical mystic. This fed all his periods, more than merely "early" and "late" could show.

Arising_uk wrote:

JohniJones wrote:Makes no difference. Witt was always a logical mystic. This fed all his periods, more than merely "early" and "late" could show.

How would you know this? Given you said you'd not studied him.

chaz wyman wrote:

JohniJones wrote:

Impenitent wrote:early or late?

-Imp

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?

Arising_uk wrote:

JohniJones wrote:Makes no difference. Witt was always a logical mystic. This fed all his periods, more than merely "early" and "late" could show.

How would you know this? Given you said you'd not studied him.

Arising_uk wrote:Really!? Stick a photo up of yourself.

JohniJones wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: 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.

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!

JohniJones wrote:

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.