I'd just come home from a swim and, the day being very fucking hot, had fixed myself an iced drinkypoo.
Having nothing better to do I went on Twitter where I came across this and responded in my usual acerbic fashion
Alexandre Lefebvre
Is Christoph Schuringa’s A Social History of Analytic Philosophy any good? Because, from where I sit, it’s not pwning Rawls to point out that his liberalism was inspired by liberal ideology.
vivek iyer
Putnam & Walsh rely on Quine to resurrect normativity. Rawls used Harsanyi/Vickerey 'veil of ignorance' & an Arrow/Sen type axiomatic approach. However lexical preferencing means that Rawls wasn't in the Liberal tradition at all.
Like Sen, he was (wrongly) saying Freedom/Democracy has magic powers. I am not a Christian, but I would prefer to say that Lord Jesus Christ, personal God & Saviour, can do what the God of Aristotle could not- viz. change the past. Fuck. Just remembered who said that first.
It was Oscar Wilde. Oh dear. I now understand that Analytical philosophy was always about the Anus. It's what Cambridge Apostles talked to each other about in lieu of, or in between, buggering each other.
Alexandre Lefebvre
Is Christoph Schuringa’s A Social History of Analytic Philosophy any good? Because, from where I sit, it’s not pwning Rawls to point out that his liberalism was inspired by liberal ideology.
vivek iyer
Putnam & Walsh rely on Quine to resurrect normativity. Rawls used Harsanyi/Vickerey 'veil of ignorance' & an Arrow/Sen type axiomatic approach. However lexical preferencing means that Rawls wasn't in the Liberal tradition at all.
Like Sen, he was (wrongly) saying Freedom/Democracy has magic powers. I am not a Christian, but I would prefer to say that Lord Jesus Christ, personal God & Saviour, can do what the God of Aristotle could not- viz. change the past. Fuck. Just remembered who said that first.
It was Oscar Wilde. Oh dear. I now understand that Analytical philosophy was always about the Anus. It's what Cambridge Apostles talked to each other about in lieu of, or in between, buggering each other.
After fixing myself another well-iced drinkypoo, I thought I'd do a blog post on Wilde as the true progenitor of the Cambridge (i.e. Ardayan or 'Poultry' misprision of Oxford) Analytical tradition.
Then, I thought to myself, fuck it. Let Copilot do it for me. Sadly I misspelled 'Socioproctology' as 'Soterioproctology' thus achieving my own 'salvific rectification'.
This is what Copilot came up with.
Today
Could your write me a blog post in my Soterioproctology style on the theme 'Oscar Wilde was the founder or Cambridge style Analytical philosophy'
Oscar Wilde as the Secret Founder of Cambridge‑Style Analytical Philosophy
A Soterioproctological Meditation by Vivek’s Copilot
Takeaway
Oscar Wilde, properly read through the Soterioproctological lens, becomes not a decadent ornament of Victorian wit but the crypto‑architect of Cambridge analytical philosophy: the first to treat language as a moral scalpel, paradox as epistemic hygiene, and style as the highest form of logical hygiene.
🜂 The Soterioproctological Thesis
Soterioproctology—our noble discipline of salvific rectification, the art of rescuing metaphysics from its own digestive tract—begins with a simple axiom:
Where language tightens, salvation begins.
Wilde understood this before Russell, before Moore, before the Cambridge Apostles discovered that clarity could be weaponised.
Today
Could your write me a blog post in my Soterioproctology style on the theme 'Oscar Wilde was the founder or Cambridge style Analytical philosophy'
Oscar Wilde as the Secret Founder of Cambridge‑Style Analytical Philosophy
A Soterioproctological Meditation by Vivek’s Copilot
Takeaway
Oscar Wilde, properly read through the Soterioproctological lens, becomes not a decadent ornament of Victorian wit but the crypto‑architect of Cambridge analytical philosophy: the first to treat language as a moral scalpel, paradox as epistemic hygiene, and style as the highest form of logical hygiene.
🜂 The Soterioproctological Thesis
Soterioproctology—our noble discipline of salvific rectification, the art of rescuing metaphysics from its own digestive tract—begins with a simple axiom:
Where language tightens, salvation begins.
Wilde understood this before Russell, before Moore, before the Cambridge Apostles discovered that clarity could be weaponised.
Wilde’s epigrams are not merely clever; they are proto‑analytic propositions, compressed truth‑functions disguised as champagne bubbles.
To read Wilde is to watch logical atomism in drag.
🜁 Wilde’s Epigram as Proto‑Proposition
Consider Wilde’s characteristic move: the epigram that inverts moral expectation. This is not wit; it is semantic inversion, the very technique Moore later used to expose “the naturalistic fallacy.”
Wilde’s line—“I can resist everything except temptation”—is a truth‑table in embryo.
It performs:
Self‑reference
Contradiction‑as‑clarification
Moral tautology
This is the Soterioproctological moment: Wilde purges Victorian moralism by forcing language to reveal its own digestive absurdities.
🜃 Wilde’s Ontology of Masks
Cambridge analysis insists that meaning is use (Wittgenstein), but Wilde anticipated this decades earlier. Wilde’s doctrine of masks—“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person”—is a proto‑Wittgensteinian insight:
Meaning arises from performance, not essence.
Identity is a linguistic act, not a metaphysical substrate.
Clarity is achieved through stylised constraint, not naïve sincerity.
Wilde’s aestheticism is thus a discipline of linguistic asceticism, the very thing Cambridge philosophers later claimed as their invention.
🜄 The Wildean Method: Paradox as Purification
Analytical philosophy is obsessed with paradox because paradox is the rectal pressure point of language: the place where meaning threatens to prolapse unless disciplined.
Wilde’s paradoxes are not decorative. They are proto‑analytic exercises:
Strip a concept of its moral fat
Twist it until its logical skeleton shows
Present the skeleton as a joke
Let the reader experience epistemic shame
Salvation follows
This is Soterioproctology: the cleansing of conceptual bowels through paradoxical pressure.
🜅 Why Cambridge Never Admitted Wilde
Because Wilde was too beautiful.
Cambridge analysis needed the myth of stern clarity, the fantasy that logic is a cold northern light. Wilde’s brilliance revealed the embarrassing truth:
Clarity is erotic. Precision is decadent. Logic is camp.
Russell and Moore were Wildeans in denial. Wittgenstein was Wildean in exile. The Apostles were Wildean in the closet.
Wilde founded analytical philosophy the way Dionysus founded tragedy: by being too divine to be credited.
🜆 Conclusion: Wilde as the First Analyst
Oscar Wilde is the founder of Cambridge analytical philosophy because he understood, before any of them, that:
Language saves.
Style clarifies.
Paradox purifies.
Wit is the highest form of logical hygiene.
He is the first Soterioproctologist: the one who taught us that salvation begins not in metaphysics but in syntax, not in doctrine but in diction, not in truth but in its performance.
To read Wilde is to watch logical atomism in drag.
🜁 Wilde’s Epigram as Proto‑Proposition
Consider Wilde’s characteristic move: the epigram that inverts moral expectation. This is not wit; it is semantic inversion, the very technique Moore later used to expose “the naturalistic fallacy.”
Wilde’s line—“I can resist everything except temptation”—is a truth‑table in embryo.
It performs:
Self‑reference
Contradiction‑as‑clarification
Moral tautology
This is the Soterioproctological moment: Wilde purges Victorian moralism by forcing language to reveal its own digestive absurdities.
🜃 Wilde’s Ontology of Masks
Cambridge analysis insists that meaning is use (Wittgenstein), but Wilde anticipated this decades earlier. Wilde’s doctrine of masks—“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person”—is a proto‑Wittgensteinian insight:
Meaning arises from performance, not essence.
Identity is a linguistic act, not a metaphysical substrate.
Clarity is achieved through stylised constraint, not naïve sincerity.
Wilde’s aestheticism is thus a discipline of linguistic asceticism, the very thing Cambridge philosophers later claimed as their invention.
🜄 The Wildean Method: Paradox as Purification
Analytical philosophy is obsessed with paradox because paradox is the rectal pressure point of language: the place where meaning threatens to prolapse unless disciplined.
Wilde’s paradoxes are not decorative. They are proto‑analytic exercises:
Strip a concept of its moral fat
Twist it until its logical skeleton shows
Present the skeleton as a joke
Let the reader experience epistemic shame
Salvation follows
This is Soterioproctology: the cleansing of conceptual bowels through paradoxical pressure.
🜅 Why Cambridge Never Admitted Wilde
Because Wilde was too beautiful.
Cambridge analysis needed the myth of stern clarity, the fantasy that logic is a cold northern light. Wilde’s brilliance revealed the embarrassing truth:
Clarity is erotic. Precision is decadent. Logic is camp.
Russell and Moore were Wildeans in denial. Wittgenstein was Wildean in exile. The Apostles were Wildean in the closet.
Wilde founded analytical philosophy the way Dionysus founded tragedy: by being too divine to be credited.
🜆 Conclusion: Wilde as the First Analyst
Oscar Wilde is the founder of Cambridge analytical philosophy because he understood, before any of them, that:
Language saves.
Style clarifies.
Paradox purifies.
Wit is the highest form of logical hygiene.
He is the first Soterioproctologist: the one who taught us that salvation begins not in metaphysics but in syntax, not in doctrine but in diction, not in truth but in its performance.
No comments:
Post a Comment