Ludwig Wittgenstein ist zweifellos einer der bedeutendsten und einflussreichsten Philosophen des 20. Jahrhunderts – und das, obwohl er zu Lebzeiten kaum etwas veröffentlicht hat. Bis heute wirken der Stil seines Philosophierens und seine Radikalität auf viele philosophisch außerordentlich inspirierend. Hinzu kommt das Schillernde seiner von Anekdoten umrankten Persönlichkeit, die in etlichen biographischen Werken aufgearbeitet wurde. Stefan Majetschak gibt einen konzisen Überblick über Leben und Gesamtwerk dieser Jahrhundertfigur und spürt ihren Wirkungen nach.

Abstract“A Misleading Parallel”. Wittgenstein on Conceptual Confusion in Psychology and the Semantics of Psychological Concepts. After the Philosophical Investigations, except for details, were largely finished in 1945, Wittgenstein, in his final years, undertook an intensive study of the grammar of our psychological concepts and the philosophical misinterpretations we often assign to them. Anyone looking through these extensive collections of philosophical remarks will probably quite often find it difficult to understand which questions Wittgenstein was addressing with individual remarks or groups of (...) remarks and where the philosophical problems lay for which he was trying to find a solution, whether therapeutic or otherwise appropriate.In the article at hand I do not claim to fathom the full range of Wittgenstein’s thoughts on the philosophy of psychology even in the most general way. Rather it is my intention to shed some light on a diagnosis which he made for the psychology of his time. In part 1 of this paper I would like to provide a brief sketch of what Wittgenstein considered to be the conceptual confusion prevalent in psychology and to suggest why he did not expect the methods of an experimental (natural) science to be successful in solving the problems that concern us in psychology. In part 2 I’ll attempt to analyze how psychological concepts, according to Wittgenstein, might be construed in order to avoid any type of conceptual confusion. (shrink)

After 1945, when the Philosophical Investigations were largely finished, Wittgenstein spent his final years undertaking an intensive study of the grammar of our psychological concepts and the philosophical misinterpretations we often assign to them. In the article at hand I do not claim to fathom the full range of Wittgenstein’s thoughts on the philosophy of psychology even in the most general way. Rather it is my intention to shed some light on a diagnosis which he made for the psychology of (...) his time. In Section 2 of this paper I would like to provide a brief sketch of what Wittgenstein considered to be the conceptual confusion prevalent in psychology and to suggest why he did not expect the methods of an experimental science to be successful in solving the problems that concern us in psychology. In Section 3 I’ll attempt to analyze how psychological concepts, according to Wittgenstein, might be construed in order to avoid any type of conceptual confusion. (shrink)

The concepts ‚Übersicht‘ (survey), ‚Übersichtlichkeit‘ (surveyability) and ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung‘ (surveyable representation) play a central role in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. As Peter Hacker already noticed in 1972, an adequate English translation of these terms has “given Wittgenstein’s translators much trouble. They have chosen to translate it non-systematically in conformity with the demands of English style, thereby partially obscuring the significance and pervasiveness of the concept in Wittgenstein’s work, e. g. ‘command a clear view’ (Übersehen PI, § 122); ‘perspicious representation’ (Übersichtliche Darstellung (...) PI, § 122); ‘synoptic account’ (Übersichtliche Darstellung Z, § 273); ‘Survey’ (Übersicht Z, § 273); ‘synoptic view’ (Übersichtlichkeit Z, § 464); ‘perspicuity’ (Übersichtlichkeit RFM, p. 45);² ‘capable of being taken in’ (Übersehbar RFM, p. 81)3.” (Hacker 1972: 113 f. fn. 3) Since then other translations have been added to Hacker’s list, i.e. ‘surview’ for ‘Übersicht’ (Hacker’s own choice) and ‘overview’ for ‘übersehen’ (cf. PI 2009: 122). In his discussion of the notion ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung’ Alois Pichler suggests that “synopsis” and “synoptic view” might be the best translations for what Wittgenstein had in mind using the terms ‚Übersicht’ and ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung’ (cf. Pichler 2004: 181). Recently the problem of how to adequately translate the German words in question into English is also discussed by Mathieu Marion (cf. Marion 2011: 138 f. fn. 4). In what follows I shall argue - like Marion, but probably for different reasons - that the terms ‘survey’ (Übersicht), ‘surveyability’ (Übersichtlichkeit) and ‘surveyable representation’ (übersichtliche Darstellung) most adequately represent what Wittgenstein had in mind. As might become clear only this consistency in wording allows to grasp the connections in meaning Wittgenstein implicitly hints at, wherever he uses the terms ‘Übersicht’ and ‘Übersichtlichkeit’ in different parts of his ‘Nachlass’ and different periods of his philosophical development. (shrink)

The concepts ‚Übersicht‘ (survey), ‚Übersichtlichkeit‘ (surveyability) and ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung‘ (surveyable representation) play a central role in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. As Peter Hacker already noticed in 1972, an adequate English translation of these terms has “given Wittgenstein’s translators much trouble. They have chosen to translate it non-systematically in conformity with the demands of English style, thereby partially obscuring the significance and pervasiveness of the concept in Wittgenstein’s work, e. g. ‘command a clear view’ (Übersehen PI, § 122); ‘perspicious representation’ (Übersichtliche Darstellung (...) PI, § 122); ‘synoptic account’ (Übersichtliche Darstellung Z, § 273); ‘Survey’ (Übersicht Z, § 273); ‘synoptic view’ (Übersichtlichkeit Z, § 464); ‘perspicuity’ (Übersichtlichkeit RFM, p. 45);² ‘capable of being taken in’ (Übersehbar RFM, p. 81)3.” (Hacker 1972: 113 f. fn. 3) Since then other translations have been added to Hacker’s list, i.e. ‘surview’ for ‘Übersicht’ (Hacker’s own choice) and ‘overview’ for ‘übersehen’ (cf. PI 2009: 122). In his discussion of the notion ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung’ Alois Pichler suggests that “synopsis” and “synoptic view” might be the best translations for what Wittgenstein had in mind using the terms ‚Übersicht’ and ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung’ (cf. Pichler 2004: 181). Recently the problem of how to adequately translate the German words in question into English is also discussed by Mathieu Marion (cf. Marion 2011: 138 f. fn. 4). In what follows I shall argue - like Marion, but probably for different reasons - that the terms ‘survey’ (Übersicht), ‘surveyability’ (Übersichtlichkeit) and ‘surveyable representation’ (übersichtliche Darstellung) most adequately represent what Wittgenstein had in mind. As might become clear only this consistency in wording allows to grasp the connections in meaning Wittgenstein implicitly hints at, wherever he uses the terms ‘Übersicht’ and ‘Übersichtlichkeit’ in different parts of his ‘Nachlass’ and different periods of his philosophical development. (shrink)

At present, the theoretical approaches of Baumgarten and Kant continue to constitute the framework for discussing the nature of aesthetic judgments about art, including the question of what such judgments are really articulating. In distinction to those two eighteenth-century theorists, today we would largely avoid an assumption that aesthetic judgments necessarily attribute beauty to the objects being judged; we would as a rule take a far more complex approach to the topic. But whatever we say about art, even today many (...) theorists wish to ground aesthetic judgments in particularities of the aesthetic object, like Baumgarten, or in specific moments of the aesthetic experience, like Kant. (shrink)

Aesthetics is no longer merely the philosophy of perception and the arts. Nelson Goodman, Arthur Danto and others have contributed to develop aesthetics from a field at the margins of philosophy to one permeating substantial areas of theoretical and practical philosophy. New approaches like environmental and ecological aesthetics widened the understanding of the aesthetics of nature. The contributions in this volume address the most important issues in contemporary aesthetics, many of them from a Wittgensteinian perspective. The 39th International Ludwig Wittgenstein (...) Symposium, organized by the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, was held at Kirchberg am Wechsel, Lower Austria, from August 7th to 13th 2016 and aimed at taking an inventory of important tendencies and positions in contemporary aesthetics. The volume includes a selection of the invited papers. (shrink)

This volume provides a comprehensive account of Wilhelm Röpke as a liberal political economist and social philosopher. Wilhelm Röpke was a key protagonist of transatlantic neoliberalism, a prominent public intellectual and a gifted international networker. As an original thinker, he always positioned himself at the interface between political economy and social philosophy, as well as between liberalism and conservatism. Röpke’s endeavors to combine these elements into a coherent whole, as well as his embeddedness in European and American intellectual (...) networks of liberal and conservative thinkers, are a central theme throughout the book. The volume includes papers by international experts from a conference in Geneva on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Röpke’s passing. The first part focuses on new biographical insights into his exile years in Istanbul and Geneva, while the second part discusses his business cycle theory in the context of the Great Depression, and the third part elaborates on his multifaceted social philosophy. Wilhelm Röpke was among the most important thinkers within the classical liberal revival post-WWII, with intriguing tensions between liberalism and conservatism. A highly recommended volume. –– Peter J. Boettke, 2016-2018 President of the Mont Pèlerin Society and Professor of Economics and Philosophy, George Mason University This important collection of papers provides an in-depth assessment of Wilhelm Röpke’s contributions, placing him in the context of his time. A fine contribution. –– Bruce J. Caldwell, Director of the Center for the History of Political Economy and Research Professor of Economics, Duke University. (shrink)