Abstract
The thesis argues, in lie main, for both a negative and positive agenda to Wittgenstein's rule-following remarks in both his Philosophical Investigations and Remarks on the foundations of Mathematics. The negative agenda is a sceptical agenda, different than as conceived by Kripke, that is destructive of a realist account of rules and contends that the correct application of a rule is not fully determined in an understanding of the rule. In addition to these consequences, this negative agenda opens Wittgenstein to Dummett's charge of radical conventionalism. These negative consequences are left unresolved by Kripke's sceptical solution and, notably, are wrongly assessed by those that dissent from a sceptical reading. The positive agenda builds on these negative considerations arguing that although there is no determination in the understanding of a rule of what will count as a correct application in so far unconsidered situations, we are still able to follow a rule correctly. This seems to involve an epistemic leap, from an underdetermined understanding to a determinate application, and, in respect of this appearance, involves what Wittgenstein calls following a rule "blindly" in an epistemic sense. Developing this view, of following a rule blindly, involves developing an account of an alternative rational response to rule instruction, one that need not involve a role for interpreting or inferring, but all the same allows for correctness in rule application in virtue of enabling agreement in rule application.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,581
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Another Look at the Rule‐Following Paradox.Greg Janzen - 2014 - Philosophical Forum 45 (1):69-88.
Sceptical Paradoxes of Rule Following.Tomoji Shogenji - 1991 - Dissertation, University of Southern California
Rule-Following Scepticism and the Individuation of Speaker's Meaning.Isaac Nevo - 1988 - Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara
Rule-Following and Externalism.Alexander Miller - 2004 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (1):127-140.
This is Simply What I Do.Catherine Legg - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1):58–80.
Notes on "Epistemology of a Rule-Based Expert System".William J. Clancey - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence 59 (1-2):191-204.
Rule-Following in Philosophical Investigations.David Pears - 1989 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 33 (1):249-261.
Rule-Following in Philosophical Investigations.David Pears - 1989 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 33 (1):249-261.
Rules and Reason.Joachim Schulte - 2007 - Ratio 20 (4):464–480.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-03-16

Total views
12 ( #792,790 of 2,461,415 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,382 of 2,461,415 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes