维特根斯坦哲学评论的起源:论第208篇和第209篇

M. Engelmann
{"title":"维特根斯坦哲学评论的起源:论第208篇和第209篇","authors":"M. Engelmann","doi":"10.5216/phi.v25i1.62274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to Rush Rhees, Wittgenstein composed TS 209 (Philosophical Remarks) and handed it in to Russell in order to renew a grant from the Cambridge Council Cambridge in April-May 1930. Pichler (1994, 2009) and Rothhaupt (2010) challenged Rhees’ hypothesis, and claimed that Wittgenstein handed in TS 208 to Russell, and not TS 209. Against their view, I argue that Rhees’ hypothesis best explains the major motive for the composition of Philosophical Remarks, and that it best explains what Wittgenstein handed in to Russell. While I give six reasons in favor of Rhees, I also try to explain how Russell, Moore, Littlewood, Schlick, and Waismann are linked with the composition of TS 208 and TS 209.","PeriodicalId":30368,"journal":{"name":"Philosophos Revista de Filosofia","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The origins Of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Remarks: On Ts 208 And Ts 209\",\"authors\":\"M. Engelmann\",\"doi\":\"10.5216/phi.v25i1.62274\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to Rush Rhees, Wittgenstein composed TS 209 (Philosophical Remarks) and handed it in to Russell in order to renew a grant from the Cambridge Council Cambridge in April-May 1930. Pichler (1994, 2009) and Rothhaupt (2010) challenged Rhees’ hypothesis, and claimed that Wittgenstein handed in TS 208 to Russell, and not TS 209. Against their view, I argue that Rhees’ hypothesis best explains the major motive for the composition of Philosophical Remarks, and that it best explains what Wittgenstein handed in to Russell. While I give six reasons in favor of Rhees, I also try to explain how Russell, Moore, Littlewood, Schlick, and Waismann are linked with the composition of TS 208 and TS 209.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophos Revista de Filosofia\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophos Revista de Filosofia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5216/phi.v25i1.62274\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophos Revista de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5216/phi.v25i1.62274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据拉什·里斯的说法,维特根斯坦写了TS 209(哲学评论),并把它交给了罗素,以便在1930年4月至5月期间续签剑桥委员会的资助。Pichler(1994,2009)和Rothhaupt(2010)对Rhees的假设提出了质疑,并声称维特根斯坦将TS 208交给了罗素,而不是TS 209。与他们的观点相反,我认为李的假设最好地解释了《哲学评论》写作的主要动机,也最好地解释了维特根斯坦交给罗素的东西。虽然我给出了支持Rhees的六个理由,但我也试图解释罗素、摩尔、利特伍德、施里克和魏斯曼是如何与TS 208和TS 209的组成联系在一起的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The origins Of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Remarks: On Ts 208 And Ts 209
According to Rush Rhees, Wittgenstein composed TS 209 (Philosophical Remarks) and handed it in to Russell in order to renew a grant from the Cambridge Council Cambridge in April-May 1930. Pichler (1994, 2009) and Rothhaupt (2010) challenged Rhees’ hypothesis, and claimed that Wittgenstein handed in TS 208 to Russell, and not TS 209. Against their view, I argue that Rhees’ hypothesis best explains the major motive for the composition of Philosophical Remarks, and that it best explains what Wittgenstein handed in to Russell. While I give six reasons in favor of Rhees, I also try to explain how Russell, Moore, Littlewood, Schlick, and Waismann are linked with the composition of TS 208 and TS 209.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Tropeços da igualdade no caminho da natureza à civilidade Quatro formas de silenciamento fundamento moral à forma da normatividade Descartes: a dúvida e suas dívidas A relevância da distinção kantiana entre virtude e boa vontade para o debate contemporâneo sobre a ética das virtudes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1