[wynand]

> Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head:

That old bugbear - horrible as he might have been in person, his philosophy is distinct from this side of him. We might as well insinuate that Feynmann's work is worthless because he was a womanizer.

> Not having any philosophical problems one is interested in or finds fruitful is completely understandable

How is reasoning about the problems of philosophy itself not an interesting philosophical problem? You are entitled to your own opinion, but when you slate someone who was considered by other big philosophers as a giant, you need to make a stronger point than that.

[xenophanes]

Whether "reasoning about the problems of philosophy" is interesting depends on what you think they are, and whether you manage to come up with any useful answers.

What sort of stronger point do you want? I have an explanation of what Wittgenstein was (a person without philosophical problems) which accounts for all evidence of Wittgenstein known to me. I think it can account for everything you know about Wittgenstein too, if you think about it.

Did you want me to pick several examples -- which you can then accuse of being cherry picked -- and show how it fits? And I should do this in addition to offering my general explanation, even though you've offered neither an explanation of Witt nor brought up any examples for or against mine?