"For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday."
do you know this one:http://inthespaceofreasons.blogspot.com/ ?dmf
Yes, but I haven't looked at it for a while. Can't think why. Thanks for the reminder.
Tim Thornton's blog is absolutely brilliant, and definitely one of the best philosophy and psychiatry blogs out there.The only thing I don't like about it is he has a really bizarre idea of what Wittgenstein's therapeutic method actually is (doubly strange for someone who is interested in therapy in itself, unlike most W scholars.) He seems to think that it basically just involves tracing a "philosophical confusion" back to dodgy assumptions and then challenging/undermining those assumptions. Which is fine as a way of doing philosophy, but it doesn't look a) much like therapy or b) much like W (in my opinion.)Which is a shame, because my being anal about methodology is the only thing which keeps me from wholly loving inthespaceofreasons.
Maybe that's why I don't read it more often. That and limited time, of course. But it sounds like something I should go back to.Challenging dodgy assumptions sounds OK and almost like Wittgenstein in a way, but completely unlike him in another way. That's not very helpfully put, but I think you know what I mean.
Yes, I do. And I know this is obnoxious and philosophery, but I guess it depends what is mean by challenging. I just always felt that "challenging assumptions" for Thornton took on a far too narrow and rationalistic flavour for W to have put anything like *that* at the centre of his methodology.
meh, I'm not a regular reader but I think he is fine as philosophy of science/medicine goes, don't think of him as a Wittgenstein scholar or a therapist but than I don't think that Witt. has much to offer directly to clinical work either so different strokes I suppose.-dmf
fwiw i think many wittgenstein scholars have a view more or less like that about assumptions. they're generally just kind of mushy about why it's not just questioning assumptions per usual.
Could be. And it wouldn't be surprising, given that to get on in philosophy (at all levels) you need to answer the question, contribute to the debate, etc. Challenging the terms or presuppositions of the debate is actively discouraged. Which is understandable and possibly even good (most "radical challenges" are likely to be vain), but it has a downside too.
Also, thanks a lot. Seriously. (Does this contravene blogging etiquette? Probably.)
No problem. (If it does then blogging etiquette ought to be ignored more often. Although I don't mean that more people ought to thank me.)