...neither liberating nor constraining thought, Putnam’s affinities with Sapir-Whorf notwithstanding. In this connection, I have little use for relativism with Skolem’s face, or whatever flavor of the month Putnam may be hawking nowadays. Speaking of Russiam philosophy, the little fragment of Shestov that I quoted elsewhere has Hilary dead to rights. I would much rather wrestle with Quine or Lewis, stronger writers unencumbered by ladylike scruples. Looking over Whitehead, I confirm my recollection of his terminology, under which there is no philosophy, and indeed no body of writing, devoid of doctrine. There are writers that disguise their doctrines as therapeutic procedures or prescriptions, but the world would have been a much better place, were they to take two aspirins in lieu of calling us in the morning.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
then we are agreed on the powers of language
Date: 2005-10-03 06:02 pm (UTC)Looking over Whitehead, I confirm my recollection of his terminology, under which there is no philosophy, and indeed no body of writing, devoid of doctrine. There are writers that disguise their doctrines as therapeutic procedures or prescriptions, but the world would have been a much better place, were they to take two aspirins in lieu of calling us in the morning.