“Good” Philosophical Reasons for “Bad” Editorial Philology? On Rhees and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Grammar

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPhilosophical investigations Vol. 42; no. 2; pp. 111 - 145
Main Author Erbacher, Christian
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2019
Subjects
Editorials
Philology
Philosophy
Rhees, Rush
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1889-1951)
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary: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, purely text‐philological criticism of Philosophical Grammar seems to come from a philosophical culture that was alien to Rhees.
ISSN:0190-0536
1467-9205
DOI:10.1111/phin.12226