Wittgenstein and history

H. Glock
{"title":"Wittgenstein and history","authors":"H. Glock","doi":"10.1515/9783110328912.277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wittgenstein’s place in the history of Western thought has been widely discussedby scholars. But Wittgenstein’s own attitude to history has so farescaped the notice of scholars. In this essay the author attempts to exploitthe meagre primary resources in order to discuss and assess Wittgenstein’sown thinking about history – both the history of philosophy and history ingeneral – and about historical modes of thought. In section 2, he introducesthe historicist challenge to analytic philosophy, and distinguishes differentvarieties of historicism. In section 3, he critically discusses Wittgenstein’sattitude to the history of philosophy, and its relation to the positions ofthinkers such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the logical positivists, Ryle andQuine. While Wittgenstein himself was indifferent or hostile to historicalscholarship, he has inspired several historicists. For this reason section 4briefly considers the question of whether Wittgenstein’s reflections on othertopics such as language or the nature of philosophy willy-nilly support historicism,either directly or indirectly. The final section turns from the historyof philosophy to history in general. It compares and contrastsWittgenstein’s account of conceptual investigations with the genetic methodderived from Nietzsche and recently promoted by Bernard Williams,according to which proper philosophy needs to take account of the historicaldevelopment of our conceptual scheme.","PeriodicalId":317292,"journal":{"name":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","volume":"363 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110328912.277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Wittgenstein’s place in the history of Western thought has been widely discussedby scholars. But Wittgenstein’s own attitude to history has so farescaped the notice of scholars. In this essay the author attempts to exploitthe meagre primary resources in order to discuss and assess Wittgenstein’sown thinking about history – both the history of philosophy and history ingeneral – and about historical modes of thought. In section 2, he introducesthe historicist challenge to analytic philosophy, and distinguishes differentvarieties of historicism. In section 3, he critically discusses Wittgenstein’sattitude to the history of philosophy, and its relation to the positions ofthinkers such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the logical positivists, Ryle andQuine. While Wittgenstein himself was indifferent or hostile to historicalscholarship, he has inspired several historicists. For this reason section 4briefly considers the question of whether Wittgenstein’s reflections on othertopics such as language or the nature of philosophy willy-nilly support historicism,either directly or indirectly. The final section turns from the historyof philosophy to history in general. It compares and contrastsWittgenstein’s account of conceptual investigations with the genetic methodderived from Nietzsche and recently promoted by Bernard Williams,according to which proper philosophy needs to take account of the historicaldevelopment of our conceptual scheme.
维特根斯坦和历史
维特根斯坦在西方思想史上的地位一直被学者们广泛讨论。但维特根斯坦自己对历史的态度却远远没有引起学者们的注意。在这篇文章中,作者试图利用有限的原始资源来讨论和评价维特根斯坦自己对历史的思考——既包括哲学史,也包括一般历史——以及对历史思维方式的思考。在第二节中,他介绍了历史主义对分析哲学的挑战,并区分了不同种类的历史主义。在第三节中,他批判性地讨论了维特根斯坦对哲学史的态度,以及它与叔本华、尼采、逻辑实证主义者、赖尔和奎因等思想家的立场的关系。虽然维特根斯坦本人对历史学术持冷漠或敌视态度,但他启发了几位历史论者。出于这个原因,第四节简要地考虑了维特根斯坦对语言或哲学本质等其他主题的反思是否直接或间接地支持历史主义的问题。最后一部分从哲学史转向一般历史。它将施维根斯坦对概念研究的描述与源于尼采的遗传方法进行了比较和对比,后者最近由伯纳德·威廉姆斯(Bernard Williams)推广,根据后者,适当的哲学需要考虑我们概念方案的历史发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信