Graduate studies at Western
In D. Prawitz (ed.), Meaning and Interpretation. Konferenser (2002)
|Abstract||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|
Similar books and articles
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 downloads46 ( #28,165 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,077 of 739,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?