Building on the unpublished correspondence between Ludwig Wittgenstein's literary executors Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright, this paper sketches the historical development of different editorial approaches to Wittgenstein's Nachlass. Using the metaphor of a ladder, it is possible to distinguish seven significant “rungs” or “steps” in the history of editing Wittgenstein's writings. The paper focuses particularly on the first four rungs, elucidating how Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright developed different editorial approaches that resulted in significant differences in (...) their editions. The paper sheds light on how these editorial differences are grounded in the editors' divergent understandings of their task. It is suggested that future research may investigate the development of editorial approaches to Wittgenstein's Nachlass as a human story of philosophical inheritance. (shrink)

Recent philosophical work on temporal experience offers generic models that are often assumed to apply to all sensory modalities. I show that the models serve as broad frameworks in which different aspects of cognitive science can be slotted and, thus, are beneficial to furthering research programs in embodied music cognition. Here I discuss a particular feature of temporal experience that plays a key role in such philosophical work: a distinction between the experience of succession and the mere succession of experiences. (...) I question the presupposition that there is such an evident, clear distinction and suggest that, instead, how the distinction is drawn is context-dependent. After suggesting a way to modify the philosophical models of temporal experience to accommodate this contextdependency, I illustrate that these models can fruitfully incorporate features of research projects in embodied musical cognition. To do so I supplement a modified retentionalist model with aspects of recent work that links bodily movement with musical perception (Godøy, 2006; 2010a; Jensenius, Wanderley, Godøy, and Leman, 2010). The resulting model is shown to facilitate novel hypotheses, refine the notion of context-dependency and point towards means of extending the philosophical model and an existent research program. (shrink)

In 2000 the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (WAB) published the CD-ROM edition of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass: The Bergen Electronic Edition (BEE). Moreover, since then WAB has worked towards complementing the static CD-ROM edition with an interactive web platform that additionally allows more user-specific and more user-tailored utilizations of WAB’s Nachlass resources. The paper describes two specific web service tools of this platform: Interactive Dynamic Presentation (IDP) of the Wittgenstein Nachlass and Semantic Faceted Search and Browsing (SFB) of Wittgenstein (...) domain metadata. The paper argues that it is only when these two tools are fully implemented and functional that WAB can adequately serve the scholarly needs of the Wittgenstein Nachlass user community. The paper discusses some selected features and functionalities of the two tools in detail. An earlier version of this paper was published as „Complementing Static Scholarly Editions with Dynamic Research Platforms: Interactive Dynamic Presentation (IDP) and Semantic Faceted Search and Browsing (SFB) for the Wittgenstein Nachlass“ in Selected Papers from the CLARIN Annual Conference 2020, ed. by C. Navarretta & M. Eskevich (Utrecht: CLARIN ERIC). In writing this paper I have benefitted from comments by K. De Smedt, N. Gangopadhyay, Ø. Gjesdal, J. Hendrickson, C. Huitfeldt, H. Al Ruweh, the Clarin 2020 conference reviewers and editors as well as Jasmin Trächtler. (shrink)

The Editors’ Preface to the fourth edition of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is disparaging of the earlier editorial efforts of G. E. M. Anscombe and Rush Rhees and in particular of their inclusion and titling of the material in “Part II”. I argue, on both historical and philosophical grounds, that the Editors have failed to refute the editorial decisions of Rhees and Anscombe – a failure born both of a neglect of the historical circumstances and Wittgenstein's own expressed hopes and intentions (...) for his writings, and of a myopic understanding of his philosophy. Wittgenstein's legacy has not been well served by their interventions, which should be undone in future editions. (shrink)