Abstract

The peripeties of academic philosophy have been accelerated to the point at which it is now fashionable to refer to a "Wittgenstein revival." This implies that interest in Wittgenstein was only a short while ago in remission. Whether or not this is true, the present volume portends a new stage in Wittgenstein exegesis, somewhat reminiscent of the scholastic commentaries on Aquinas or the late classical commentaries on Aristotle. Two thoughts spring directly to the reviewer’s mind. Is the Philosophical Investigations actually so difficult, or is the nature of its difficulty such that a 686 page commentary is required to explain the first 184 paragraphs, or approximately one-third of that work? What would Wittgenstein have said of Understanding and Meaning? One might object that the second question is irrelevant to the merits of the commentary. But surely Wittgenstein’s mode of composition, his well-known attitude toward academic philosophy in general and his disciples in particular, and above all, his injunction that philosophy is an activity, not a theory, must have some bearing upon the question of how to discuss his work. Shortly stated, Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy must be reflected in his mode of writing. No one would deny that this mode is difficult. What is the exact nature of the difficulty, and how shall commentators respond to it?