Amusingly, the late Wittgenstein's work, given that he was a mystic and all, was in large part an attack on rationalism and materialism, which are after all language games. He wasn't attacking irrationalism, with which he was perfectly happy.
--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> From: Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Kenneally, some notes and background
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 12:16 AM
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:43:51 -0400
> SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Miles Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > I have to say that's my initial reaction to
> Michael S's precis about
> > > "what's in the head that enables us to
> speak". What's fundamental to
> > > the development of language is its role in social
> relations, not
> > > what's in our heads. My fondness for late
> Wittgenstein is definitely
> > > showing here!
>
> Sure. But people have certain physical limitations. We only
>
> have two arms, for example.
>
> If we're materialists, we have to assume -- don't we? --
> that language has some physical basis in the heads and/or
> bodies of the people who do language. Is it so far-fetched
>
> to think that whatever that basis is, it might constrain
> our linguistic capacity?
>
> --
>
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>