Cavell vs. Wittgenstein on the Body-Mind Problem

IF 0.8 2区文学 0 LITERATURE

New Literary History Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1353/nlh.2022.0021

H. Staten

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract:With the ideas of skepticism and acknowledgment that he broached in Must We Mean What We Say? and The Claim of Reason, Stanley Cavell put a lasting imprint on the literary reception of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. In the wake of these books, it became standard practice to take Cavell’s reading as a reliable guide to this difficult text, or even to claim that in confronting Cavell, one confronts Wittgenstein. But the conflation of Wittgenstein’s thought with Cavell’s requires us to underplay or completely ignore what Garry L. Hagberg has called a Cartesian “ conceptual undertow” in Cavell—an undertow present in Wittgenstein only as a philosophy-induced malady of thought.

查看原文本刊更多论文

卡维尔与维特根斯坦的身心问题

摘要：他在《我们必须认真对待我们所说的吗？》中提出了怀疑和承认的观点？斯坦利·卡维尔的《理性的主张》给维特根斯坦的《哲学考察》的文学接受留下了不可磨灭的印记。在这些书之后，将卡维尔的阅读作为这本困难文本的可靠指南，甚至声称在面对卡维尔时，我们面对的是维特根斯坦，这已成为标准做法。但是，将维特根斯坦的思想与卡维尔的思想混为一谈，要求我们低估或完全忽视加里·L·哈格伯格在卡维尔所说的笛卡尔“概念潜流”——维特根斯坦身上的潜流只是一种哲学引发的思想弊病。

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

New Literary History LITERATURE-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

11.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： New Literary History focuses on questions of theory, method, interpretation, and literary history. Rather than espousing a single ideology or intellectual framework, it canvasses a wide range of scholarly concerns. By examining the bases of criticism, the journal provokes debate on the relations between literary and cultural texts and present needs. A major international forum for scholarly exchange, New Literary History has received six awards from the Council of Editors of Learned Journals.