Skip to main content

Wittgenstein Summer School at Oxford University


I am running a week on Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations for Oxford University Depart. of Continuing Education. 12th-19th July. Details available here.

There are lots of excellent courses available. Go here.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
hmmm,
Considering my own knowledge of Wittgenstein, almost anything I could absorb would be an improvement, but I'm unfortunately not able to participate.
On the other hand, I do suspect that Ibrahim Lawson would benefit greatly from your course as well
:-)

Cassanders
In Cod we trust
January 18, 2008 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said…
Why would you suspect that, Cassanders?
January 21, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Anonymous said…
Sorry for responding so late.

My suspicion is based on the observation of your references to Wittgenstein, language and hermeneutics in several occations on this blog, the responses from others (who apparently are fairly well versed in W.'s work) and then your apparent inability to counter their objections in any substantial way.

But my suspicion might of course be wrong. As I allready have indicated, you are probably vastly more erudite on W. than me.

My only recent rendezvous with W. was BTW entirely circumstantial. In his recent "The Grasshooper", Bernard Suits has a wonderful and simple generic definiton of "game": "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles"
Apparently W. believed that "game" could not be given a general and concice definition.

Cassanders
In Cod we trust
January 25, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Ibrahim Lawson said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Ibrahim Lawson said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 29, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Ibrahim Lawson said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Ibrahim Lawson said…
Ok, I've been trying to post a hyperlink but i obviously don't know how to do it.

anyway, Cassanders, I would appreciate you pointing to an example of my apparent inability to respond to others objections to my interpretation of Wittgenstein, language and hermeneutics etc as i wasn't really aware that anyone had taken me up on any of these issues and may have missed something.
January 29, 2008 at 2:38 PM
stephen said…
Is there any chance of taking this as a distance course? I am Canadian philosophy grad from a Uni that didn't devote much time to 20th century thinkers, let alone W. I know, it is to cry.

Cheers,
Stephen
January 30, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Stephen Law said…
Not a distance course, I'm afraid. Though the Philosophy Gym course run by OUDCE is (but different topics, obviously).
January 30, 2008 at 1:41 PM
stephen said…
I was afraid of that. Reading it on my own proved frustrating, and the secondary literature is so large and varied that its hard to know where to begin. Any thoughts?

Many Thanks,
Stephen
January 31, 2008 at 1:59 PM
stephen said…
I was afraid of that. Reading it on my own proved frustrating, and the secondary literature is so large and varied that its hard to know where to begin. Any thoughts?

Many Thanks,
Stephen
January 31, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Anonymous said…
I'm looking forward to attend your course :)
April 30, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Stephen Law said…
I have got a facebook account. But not very good at using it. It's possible to file oneself under headings like "philosophy" is it?
May 1, 2008 at 7:53 AM
Ben Bousquet said…
I attended this course - and let me say it was top notch - seminar discussions were as buzzing with thoughts as a bee hive...

Nice one Stephen!
July 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more