Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. “Good” Philosophical Reasons for “Bad” Editorial Philology? On Rhees and Wittgenstein'sPhilosophical Grammar.Christian Erbacher - 2019 - Philosophical Investigations 42 (2):111-145.
    Using new archival material, this article reconstructs the editorial history of Philosophical Grammar, an edition that Rush Rhees crafted from Wittgenstein's papers. Contrasting the often‐held view that Rhees, in editing Philosophical Grammar, arbitrarily interfered with Wittgenstein's Big Typescript, the article illuminates the work, motives and reasons that underlie Rhees’ editing. Although recent philological evidence supports his editorial decisions, Rhees, at the time, made them based on his desire to do justice to his understanding of Wittgenstein's philosophical orientation. Against this background, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • “Among the omitted stuff, there are many good remarks of a general nature” – On the Making of von Wright and Wittgenstein’s Culture and Value.Christian Erbacher - 2017 - SATS 18 (2):79-113.
    This paper uses archival material to contextualize Georg Henrik von Wright’s making of Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture and Value), an edition that assembles Wittgenstein’s remarks on cultural topics. Von Wright was particularly interested in these remarks but initially regarded them as too detached from philosophy to be published. In 1967-68, however, he began seeing socio-political questions as belonging to philosophy. He then resumed editing Wittgenstein’s ‘general remarks’ and published them in 1977. Von Wright did not read Culture and Value as a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark