Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Kripke's rule-following considerations show that no fact ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is not an objection to meaning-engendered (ME) normativity that there are situations in which "green" means green for S without S being obligated to apply "green" only to green objects.

    Kripke's rule-following considerations show that no fact about past usage determines a unique correct application of any term.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Any finite set of past applications is compatible with infinitely many distinct continuations, making past usage underdetermine future use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Physical facts about the brain and behavior cannot by themselves constitute semantic content without additional interpretation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Correctness in rule-following requires grasping an abstract rule, not merely matching a pattern instantiated in finite historical data.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Community practices, dispositions, and training establish meaning through regularities that constrain acceptable applications normatively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's underdetermination argument trades on skepticism about semantic facts, not proof that no facts determine meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Determinate linguistic meaning persists across generations despite finite historical data, suggesting facts do determine correct application.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Any finite set of past applications is compatible with infinitely many distinct ...Community practices, dispositions, and training establish meaning through regula...Correctness in rule-following requires grasping an abstract rule, not merely mat...Determinate linguistic meaning persists across generations despite finite histor...
    +3 moreShow less
    It is not an objection to meaning-engendered (ME) normativity that there are sit...Kripke's underdetermination argument trades on skepticism about semantic facts, ...Physical facts about the brain and behavior cannot by themselves constitute sema...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit