Comments for Prometheus

Comment on Therapy, Ethics, and Religiosity: The Necessity of Conversion Included in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Therapy by Ursa Zimmer

Ursa Zimmer — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 05:45:21 +0000

I do think there’s an element of Pyrrho in the Investigations! There may be some subtle differences, though, in that Pyrrho’s ataraxia is the result of a suspension of judgement and is therefore fundamentally epistemological, while Wittgenstein’s is the result of something else… he doesn’t formally suspend judgement, he stops “judging” in the epistemic sense altogether. I do think that the attitude is basically the same, though, especially in its “ethical” components.
+1

Comment on Therapy, Ethics, and Religiosity: The Necessity of Conversion Included in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Therapy by Michael

Michael — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:43:29 +0000

Tony,

Thanks for your comment!

Comment on Therapy, Ethics, and Religiosity: The Necessity of Conversion Included in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Therapy by Tony

Tony — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:58:16 +0000

This was an incredibly well written and fascinating reading of the Investigations. I didn’t expect to learn anything from this and have come away inspired. I find your take on W’s therapeutic method as one of aporia leading to peace as reminiscent of what Pyrrhonian skepticism tries to accomplish, with suspension of judgment leading to ataraxia. I was half-expecting to see this connection made but perhaps you don’t see a connection here between these two methodologies.

Comment on Therapy, Ethics, and Religiosity: The Necessity of Conversion Included in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Therapy by Mark and Alexandra

Mark and Alexandra — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 01:41:24 +0000

Michael – An interesting and impressive read indeed! Your analysis is being well received by an equally impressive publication. Way to go and we look forward to reading more from you in the very near future.

Comment on Therapy, Ethics, and Religiosity: The Necessity of Conversion Included in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Therapy by Marty

Marty — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:41:15 +0000

Michael,
well done and well written. Congrats

Comment on Heidegger’s Secular Fall by Jerome Madumelu

Jerome Madumelu — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:38:47 +0000

This is a wonderful analysis of the tension-filled chapter four of Heidegger’s Being and Time. The different lenses of interpretation brought to this chapter is indicative of the fact that Heidegger is a powerful writer who can generate functional ideas in others. The das Man and the Dasein, the they and the self, authenticity and in-authenticity of Dasein explained in the concepts of distantiality, averageness and levelling-down can be found in the real life of individuals in the real world.

Comment on Threatening Ambivalence: Aliza Shvarts’s Disruption of the Patriarchal (Hetero)Normative by Alston

Alston — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:54:27 +0000

This is just the sort of detail I was hunting for. I wish I’d have found your web blog before.

Comment on The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever by Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:48:17 +0000

@ Moosh,

i.e., Any of the gods can answer your questions.

Comment on The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever by Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:46:51 +0000

@ Moosh,

You assume that True and False cannot know how Random will answer. But they are gods, and as far as we know their only limitations are that True always speaks truthfully and False always speaks falsely. So it is at least possible that True and False can know beforehand how Random will answer.

The fact of their knowing beforehand how Random will answer does not affect the randomness of whether his answers are true or false. Randomness only indicates that there is no pattern in his answers from which it would be possible to calculate the probability of his answer to any particular question being true or false.

Comment on The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever by Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:14:56 +0000

It took me three days to get an answer. Here goes:

Ask god A, “Will you answer ‘yes’ to this question?” Since an answer of “yes” will be true and an answer of “no” will also be true, if the god answers at all he must be either True or Random.

Remember, the problem does not stipulate that the god MUST answer; it only stipulates that True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, and Random speaks truly or falsely at random. Thus, if False ALWAYS speaks falsely, and the question does not permit a false answer, then he must remain silent when asked.

So, if god A replies, then god A is either True or Random. Then, ask god B, “Will you answer ‘yes’ to this question?” If god B replies, then god B is either True or Random, and god C is thus False.

Now, for the third question ask god A, “Will you answer ‘no’ to this question?” Any answer to this question will be false, so if god A answers, then god A is Random and god B is True.

This solution works whether or not any particular god answers any particular question. You just have to alter the order of the questions and who you ask, depending on whether or not the god answers.

Concerning the god Random: You are not affecting his freedom to answer “da” or “ja”–he still may answer either one, no matter which means yes or no. However, you are ensuring that whether he answers da or ja, you know he’s either not False (if you ask the ‘yes’ question) or not True (if you ask the ‘no’ question).