>This from someone who is trying to tell the rest of us about
>Wittgenstein? Tell us, DHR, where do your ideas about him
>come from? (As if I couldn't guess.) Have you the first clue
>about what "playing a language game" means? (DHR: No,
>but I know someone who does! :-) (Oops, subst. "did"!)
Actually, you have a point that my source was a commentary that used pieces of
Witt's writing and not a book by Witt himself. However, for you to say something
like "first read Witt, then we can talk" is like me saying, "first read all of
Rand, Neo-Tech, etc. then maybe I can find the time to explain things to you."
>Outside of Enlightened perfection, only contrived systems are
>entirely consistent, and they're all unrealistic, or at least
>incomplete in the sense that there's something they fail to
>account for. See Godel.
The mathematical analogy does not apply. See Rosdeitcher.:)
-David