Hi Rob,

You explicitly accused Keynes of promoting dishonesty
and adduced a quote.  I am pointing out that you
badly misinterpreted the quote and then asked us to use
that misinterpretation as evidence of Keynes's promotion
of dishonesty.  I would consider *that* an attack on rationality.

I am also puzzled by your characterization of Russell.
Russell of course considered Wittgenstein a genius:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFXWKEc84ew
By equating an "attack on rationality" with promotion
of dishonesty, you engage in an illegitimate elision.
You might as easily say Kant engaged in an "attack on
rationality" by pointing out some limits of reason, but
I presume that you would not then move to an accusation
of dishonesty.

So, if you had a case against Wittgenstein, your attack
on Keynes would be based on misinterpretation and ad hominem.
But you have not offered a case against Wittgenstein.
And in my view, anything you might call Wittgenstein's "attack
on  rationality" was simply a well-justified attack on the
pretense that words can do certain kinds of work.  When
someone gets in a kerfuffle about that, it usually means
that they want words to do work that they cannot.  In
particular, it often means they want ethical terms to
do work they cannot, and they are upset at Wittgenstein
for calling them out on this.

Of course when talking about this "attack on rationality",
you perhaps wish to distinguish between "the promotion of
Wittgenstein's philosophy" and "Wittgenstein's philosophy".
I have not been able to determine that from what you've written.

Alan



On 6/6/2014 5:58 AM, Rob Tye wrote:
> 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
>