SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Fri, 6 Jun 2014 05:58:58 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Dear Alan,

Let me attempt again to clarify my position here.  I share  the view of
Russell and others, which resembles a charge that the promotion of
Wittgenstein’s philosophy was a crime against rationality.

I chose to act as detective on that matter.  Since Keynes was spotted near
the scene of the crime (promoting Wittgenstein, and denigrating Newton
too!), he needs to be treated as a potential suspect.  

My request to group was for leads regarding new evidence, for or against,
his culpability.

Your mail contains no new evidence.  It just reiterates what Keynes himself
argued.  I assure you I already understood that.  When a suspect offers an
alibi, a good detective has a duty to check it.  After all, as the
delightful Mandy Rice Davis reputedly stated “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”

Disappointing that I have received no new leads.

Rob Tye, York, UK

ATOM RSS1 RSS2