The NDPR has just published a review — writen by Oskari Kuusela (University of East Anglia) — of Wittgenstein After his Nachlass, a volume of essays edited by Nuno Venturinha (New University of Lisbon). To access the review online, please click here.
Here is how the review begins:
Wittgenstein After His Nachlass is a collection of essays on philological and philosophical issues relating to Wittgenstein’s literary remains. The focus of some chapters is exclusively philological in that they, for example, simply describe recently discovered Wittgenstein-materials. Others focus on the significance of the Nachlassfor the interpretation of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and the role it should play in exegesis, including questions relating to the editing of his so-called works from it. Thus, while the chapters of the latter type address pertinent — albeit sometimes neglected — issues relating to the methodology of Wittgenstein-interpretation, the more purely philological chapters contribute to such aims less directly. To mention some relevant methodological problems for Wittgenstein-interpretation, his style of writing in remarks has sometimes invited his readers to make free use of any remark anywhere in the text corpus that seems to support their favoured interpretation, disregarding any questions about, for instance, how the context of the remark and/or the time of its writing might affect its interpretation. This approach is obviously problematic in the crude form of so-called passage hunting. More subtle, potentially problematic, forms of it exist too, as discussed below with reference to the contributions by Peter Hacker and David Stern. Issues relating to the employment of the Nachlass are intimately connected with other interpretative questions concerning Wittgenstein’s philosophical approach since the sort of interpretive conclusions one regards as appropriate to draw from a remark of Wittgenstein’s partly depends on how one understands the philosophical purpose of his remarks generally or the aims of his writing or his philosophical approach.