Talk:New Wittgenstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Title change?
Since this article seems to be primarily about one book's interpretation, why not change the title of the article to the title of the book? -Seth Mahoney 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- The book claims to be representing an interpretation that has existed previously; not sure if the name "New Wittgenstein" was a coinage, or if it existed prior, but it would sort of be analgous to something like imagism? Sdedeo (tips) 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Still, the article seems to be about the book's claims rather than a new movement in Wittgenstein scholarship per se. Kripkenstein is an example of a term used in a book that warrants its own article, rather than the book warranting its own article, mostly because the term is more well known than the book. I dunno, its morning and I'm pointing toward rambliness, so I'll just leave it at, "hey, here's a suggestion - keep it in mind if the article starts to seem unweildly in some direction or another". -Seth Mahoney 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The title of the anthology in question is The New Wittgenstein, so I fail to see how this would make for any substantial change. That said, The New Wittgenstein (1) doesn't advance a unitary claim about Wittgenstein (it's an anthology of previous work published by authors who agree on some broad points of interpretation but disagree on many other things), and (2) isn't the only anthology that covers this ground. See, for example, Post-Analytic Tractatus from Ashgate Press, which has essays by many of the same cluster of authors, focused specifically on New Wittgensteinian readings of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Radgeek 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Thanks Radgeek -- perhaps you could add some of this to the article (e.g., in the references section?) Sdedeo (tips) 22:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The link to Thomas Ricketts isn't to Tom Ricketts the Wittgenstein scholar, but to someone else
