A Sort of Prologue: Philosophical Investigations §§1–7

§§1–7 of the Investigations should be taken at face value and not read against the grain. Wittgenstein is best understood as saying what he means and meaning what he says, and it is a mistake to suppose the examples of the shopkeeper and builders in §§1–2 cannot be read straightforwardly. The seven sections function as a prologue alerting the reader to the type of problem he intends to tackle and the type of approach he intends to pursue.     

对美国高血压预防、检测、评估及治疗联合委员会第七次报告的思考

高血压病是全球范围内最常见的心血管系统疾病,其发病率、死亡率和致残率高,是严重危害人们健康的疾病之一.美国高血压预防、检测、评估及治疗联合委员会第七次报告(JNC7)为高血压诊断及治疗提供了新的、有价值的依据.从哲学的角度对JNC7进行分析有重要意义.     

On Reinstating “Part I” and “Part II” to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations

The Editors’ Preface to the fourth edition of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is disparaging of the earlier editorial efforts of G. E. M. Anscombe and Rush Rhees and in particular of their inclusion and titling of the material in “Part II”. I argue, on both historical and philosophical grounds, that the Editors have failed to refute the editorial decisions of Rhees and Anscombe – a failure born both of a neglect of the historical circumstances and Wittgenstein's own expressed hopes and intentions for his writings, and of a myopic understanding of his philosophy. Wittgenstein's legacy has not been well served by their interventions, which should be undone in future editions.     

How Not to Read Philosophical Investigations: McDowell and Goldfarb on Wittgenstein on Understanding

In a recent article, John McDowell has criticised Warren Goldfarb for attributing an anti‐realist conception of linguistic understanding to Wittgenstein. 1 I argue that McDowell is right to reject Goldfarb's anti‐ realism, but does so for the wrong reasons. I show that both Goldfarb's and McDowell's interpretations are vitiated by the fact that they do not pay attention to Wittgenstein's positive claims about understanding, in particular his claim that understanding is a kind of ability. The cause of this oversight lies in their endorsement of an excessively anti‐systematic or “therapeutic” reading of Wittgenstein.