Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPichler, Aloiseng
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-05T12:51:34Z
dc.date.available2014-02-05T12:51:34Z
dc.date.issued2013-10eng
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophy and Literature 37(2): 435-450eng
dc.identifier.issn0190-0013eng
dc.identifier.otherhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v037/37.2.pichler.htmleng
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1956/7762
dc.description.abstractDoes 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.eng
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherThe Johns Hopkins University Presseng
dc.subjectWittgensteineng
dc.subjectAuthorshipeng
dc.subjectPhilosophyeng
dc.subjectArgumenteng
dc.subjectCriticismeng
dc.titleReflections on a Prominent Argument in the Wittgenstein Debateeng
dc.typePeer reviewedeng
dc.typeJournal articleeng
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2013 The Johns Hopkins University Press
dc.type.versionpublishedVersioneng
bora.peerreviewedPeer reviewedeng
bora.journalTitlePhilosophy and Literatureeng
bibo.volume37eng
bibo.issue2eng
bibo.pageStart435eng
bibo.pageEnd450eng
dc.identifier.cristinID1066864eng


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record