Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Wittgenstein's later work shows that meaning is constituted by rule-governed use within practices, not by hidden logical structures underlying surface grammar.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Wittgenstein doesn't explain how rule-following itself works; invoking 'practice' just relocates rather than solves the problem of rule-determination.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mathematical meaning appears determinate regardless of use; rules govern behavior consistently even when no community practices them identically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Appeal to ordinary language as authority begs the question; rules underlying grammar may exist beneath usage even if not traditionally logical.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Language games show meaning varies by context; chess moves mean differently than utterances, proving use constitutes meaning, not hidden logic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Philosophical problems arise from ignoring ordinary language practices; understanding use dissolves pseudo-problems that logical analysis couldn't.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Private language argument demonstrates meaning requires public rule-following; solipsistic mental structures cannot constitute meaning independently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.