[xenophanes]

I didn't say his character was relevant to his philosophy. I do think it's notable. Just like, say, Bertrand Russel's attitude to nuclear disarmament was notable. Is it relevant to whether his philosophy is true? Of course not. But should we forget about it and never mention it? No again.

As to Tractatus, if you want to discuss it more can you give a quote from the book that you consider to have value? Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

[hnhg]

I also heard that Bertrand Russell exhorted the post-war US and UK governments to launch pre-emptive strikes on the USSR before they got nuclear weapons. It makes for quite a contrast with his later pacifist stance.

[joecode]

"There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical."

[wynand]

> Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

That burden is on you, since you made the original assertion.

[xenophanes]

You are expecting me to cite the lack of something? How?

[wynand]

That doesn't let you off the hook.

You could say about anything "show me one place where x has value". In such a position, you'd always be able to dispute any point raised.

If you really believe that there is nothing of value in the Tractatus, then you should give a short summary of what you think it is about and why you don't think it has any value.

With such a summary, it's possible to have a debate, since your assertions can be challenged.

[xenophanes]

Do you think it has value? What value?

Why are you refusing to make a substantive comment? Given your refusal, why should I make a second one?

Yes, debating who should go first is stupid. So why are you doing it? (I am doing it, now, b/c I am curious why you take this approach.)

[rms]

I think the problem is that wynand didn't make the original reply to you, he just inserted himself into the debate without saying anything substantial.