Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/7762
Title: Reflections on a Prominent Argument in the Wittgenstein Debate
subject: Wittgenstein;Authorship;Philosophy;Argument;Criticism
Publisher: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Description: Does the way authors treat their own works tell us something about how these works are to be understood? Not necessarily. But then a standard argument against the “New Wittgenstein” comes under question. The argument is: the undogmatic interpretation of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus cannot be correct, since Wittgenstein himself later treats it as a work that holds certain positions. My response is: the argument is only correct if the answer to four specific questions is “yes.” The main purpose of the paper is to bring issues of philosophical authorship more into focus within Wittgensteinian interpretation.
Journal Article
publishedVersion
URI: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/7762
More Information: Philosophy and Literature 37(2): 435-450
0190-0013
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v037/37.2.pichler.html
http://hdl.handle.net/1956/7762
1066864
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Humanities

Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.
Title: Reflections on a Prominent Argument in the Wittgenstein Debate
subject: Wittgenstein;Authorship;Philosophy;Argument;Criticism
Publisher: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Description: Does the way authors treat their own works tell us something about how these works are to be understood? Not necessarily. But then a standard argument against the “New Wittgenstein” comes under question. The argument is: the undogmatic interpretation of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus cannot be correct, since Wittgenstein himself later treats it as a work that holds certain positions. My response is: the argument is only correct if the answer to four specific questions is “yes.” The main purpose of the paper is to bring issues of philosophical authorship more into focus within Wittgensteinian interpretation.
Journal Article
publishedVersion
URI: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/7762
More Information: Philosophy and Literature 37(2): 435-450
0190-0013
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v037/37.2.pichler.html
http://hdl.handle.net/1956/7762
1066864
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Humanities

Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.
Title: Reflections on a Prominent Argument in the Wittgenstein Debate
subject: Wittgenstein;Authorship;Philosophy;Argument;Criticism
Publisher: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Description: Does the way authors treat their own works tell us something about how these works are to be understood? Not necessarily. But then a standard argument against the “New Wittgenstein” comes under question. The argument is: the undogmatic interpretation of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus cannot be correct, since Wittgenstein himself later treats it as a work that holds certain positions. My response is: the argument is only correct if the answer to four specific questions is “yes.” The main purpose of the paper is to bring issues of philosophical authorship more into focus within Wittgensteinian interpretation.
Journal Article
publishedVersion
URI: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/7762
More Information: Philosophy and Literature 37(2): 435-450
0190-0013
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v037/37.2.pichler.html
http://hdl.handle.net/1956/7762
1066864
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Humanities

Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.