David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In D. Prawitz (ed.), Meaning and Interpretation. Konferenser (2002)
However, if Wittgenstein’s so called rule-following considerations are correct, then this reason for believing in the validity of (C), is mistaken. The conclusion of those considerations is that we must reject the idea that rules are things which determine possible cases of application before those cases are actually encountered and decided by speakers. If this is right, then there is no rule which determines the meanings of new sentences, i.e. before those sentences have actually been used. Therefore, it might seem that (C) is not valid for natural languages.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Peter Pagin (2003). Schiffer on Communication. Facta Philosophica 5:25-48.
Hannah Ginsborg (2011). Review of Oughts and Thoughts: Rule-Following and the Normativity of Content, by Anandi Hattiangadi. [REVIEW] Mind 119 (476):1175-1186.
By Neil Tennant (2005). Rule-Circularity and the Justification of Deduction. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (221):625–648.
Peter Pagin (2003). Communication and Strong Compositionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (3):287-322.
Peter Pagin (2010). Compositionality II: Arguments and Problems. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):265-282.
Jussi Haukioja (2005). Is Solitary Rule-Following Possible? Philosophia 32 (1-4):131-154.
Kai-Yuan Cheng (2011). A New Look at the Problem of Rule-Following: A Generic Perspective. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 155 (1):1 - 21.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #28,766 of 1,089,049 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #17,284 of 1,089,049 )
How can I increase my downloads?