Premium
“Good” Philosophical Reasons for “Bad” Editorial Philology? On Rhees and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Grammar
Author(s) -
Erbacher Christian
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
philosophical investigations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.172
H-Index - 14
eISSN - 1467-9205
pISSN - 0190-0536
DOI - 10.1111/phin.12226
Subject(s) - philology , typescript , philosophy , grammar , philosophical theory , criticism , philosophical analysis , philosophical methodology , epistemology , economic justice , linguistics , literature , sociology , art history , history , feminism , art , law , gender studies , political science
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.