10 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2023
    1. A type-script of 768 pages (labeled simply The Big Typescript) dated from 1933 had been in the estatesince 1951, but only in 1967 were the “Zettel” recognized from which it was compiled.Cut-and-paste was integral: “Usually he continued to work with the typescripts. A methodwhich he often used was to cut up the typed text into fragments (‘Zettel’) and to rearrangethe order of the remarks”.17

      via: Georg Henrik von Wright, “The Wittgenstein Papers,” The Philosophical Review 78:4 (1969), 483–563, here: 487.

      von Wright seems to indicate that Wittgenstein created typescripts which he cut up into zettel and then was able to rearrange them into final forms.

  2. Apr 2023
    1. Llewelyn, J. E. “Zettel. By Ludwig Wittgenstein. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1967. Pp. v + ve + 124 + 124e. Price 37s 6d).” The Philosophical Quarterly 18, no. 71 (April 1968): 176. https://doi.org/10.2307/2217524.

  3. Mar 2023
    1. If someone tells you that your Zettelkasten is not a Zettelkasten, just refer him to the late Wittgenstein and send him a three-legged horse. It might not solve the issue but bring some peace to your mind.

      Perhaps apropos from Wittgenstein's own zettelkasten? 🐎

      1. ''Putting the cart before the horse" may be said of an explanation like the following: we tend someone else because by analogy with our own case we believe that he is experiencing pain too.—Instead of saying: Get to know a new aspect from this special chapter of human behaviour—from this use of language. (p96)

      Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Zettel. Edited by Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright,. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Second California Paperback Printing. 1967. Reprint, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 2007.

    1. After most of the typed fragments had been traced to theirsources, comparison of them with their original forms, togetherwith certain physical features, shewed clearly that Wittgensteindid not merely keep these fragments, but worked on them,altered and polished them in their cut-up condition. This sug-gested that the addition of separate MS pieces to the box wascalculated; the whole collection had a quite different characterfrom the various bundles of more or less 'stray' bits of writingwhich were also among his Nachlass.
    2. We were naturally at first rather puzzled to account for thisbox. Were its contents an accidental collection of left-overs?Was it a receptacle for random deposits of casual scraps ofwriting? Should the large works which were some of its sourcesbe published and it be left on one side?

      This section makes me question whether or not the editors of this work were aware of the zettelkasten tradition?!?

    3. Often fragments on the same topic were clipped together; butthere were also a large number lying loose in the box. Someyears ago Peter Geach made an arrangement of this material,keeping together what were in single bundles, and otherwisefitting the pieces as well as he could according to subject matter.This arrangement we have retained with a very few alterations

      This brings up the question of how Ludwig Wittgenstein arranged his own zettelkasten...

      Peter Geach made an arrangement of Wittgenstein's zettels which was broadly kept in the edited and published version Zettel (1967). Apparently fragments on the same topic were clipped together indicating that Wittgenstein's method was most likely by topical headings. However there were also a large number of slips "lying loose in the box." Perhaps these were notes which he had yet to file or which some intervening archivist may have re-arranged?

      In any case, Geach otherwise arranged all the materials as best as he could according to subject matter. As a result the printed book version isn't necessarily the arrangement that Wittgenstein would have made, but the editors of the book felt that at least Geach's arrangement made it an "instructive and readable compilation".

      This source doesn't indicate the use of alphabetical dividers or other tabbed divisions.

    4. The earliest time of composition of any of these fragmentswas, so far as we can judge, 1929. The date at which the latestdatable fragment was written was August 1948. By far thegreatest number came from typescripts which were dictated from1945- 1948

      Based on the dating provided by Anscombe and von Wright, Wittgenstein's zettelkasten slips dated from 1929 to 1948.

      for reference LW's dates were 1889-1951

      Supposing that the notes preceded the typescripts and not the other way around as Anscombe and von Wright indicate, the majority of the notes were turned into written work (typescripts) which were dictated from 1945-1948.

      What was LW's process? Note taking, arranging/outlining, and then dictation followed by editing? Dictating would have been easier/faster certainly if he'd already written down his cards and could simply read from them to a secretary.

    5. Others again were in manuscript,apparently written to add to the remarks on a particular matterpreserved in the box.

      Some of the manuscript notes in Wittgenstein's zettelkasten were "apparently written to add to the remarks on a particular matter preserved in the box".ᔥ So much like Niklas Luhmann's wooden conversation partner, Wittgenstein was not only having conversations with the texts he was reading, he was creating a conversation between himself and his pre-existing notes thus extending his lines of thought within his zettelkasten.

    6. . They were for the most partcut from extensive typescripts of his, other copies of which stillexist. Some few were cut from typescripts which we have notbeen able to trace and which it is likely that he destroyed but forthe bits that he put in the box.

      In Zettel, the editors indicate that many of Wittgenstein's zettels "were for the most part cut from extensive typescripts of his, other copies of which still exist." Perhaps not knowing of the commonplace book or zettelkasten traditions, they may have mistook the notes in his zettelkasten as having originated in his typescripts rather than them having originated as notes which then later made it into his typescripts!

      What in particular about the originals may have made them think it was typescript to zettel?

    7. WB publish here a collection of fragments made by Wittgensteinhimself and left by him in a box-file

      In 1967, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright published a collection of notes from Ludwig Wittgenstein's zettelkasten which they aptly titled Zettel.