Kripke's normativity argument requires a fact that distinguishes correct from incorrect application, but for concepts this fact cannot be grounded in communal linguistic practice as Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations require.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Communal linguistic practice(where Wittgenstein believed meaning comes from): The way a group of people actually use language together in their daily lives—the shared, practical habits of speaking and understanding that a community develops.
Kripke: Kripke refers to Saul Kripke, an influential American philosopher and logician known for revolutionizing how we think about names, meaning, and possibility. He argued that names like "Albert Einstein" refer directly to the actual person rather than through descriptions of their properties, which changed philosophy fundamentally. His work also introduced "possible worlds" as a way to understand concepts like necessity and possibility, making him one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century.
Normativity argument(Kripke's specific philosophical puzzle): An argument about how we know when someone is using a word correctly or incorrectly—what makes one way of using a word 'right' and another way 'wrong'?
Wittgenstein: Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher who fundamentally changed how people think about language and meaning in the 20th century. He argued that many philosophical problems arise from misunderstanding how words actually work in everyday life, rather than from deep metaphysical mysteries. His ideas influenced not just philosophy but also mathematics, logic, and even how people approach psychology and artificial intelligence today.

Based on where you are in your exploration