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 rule-following considerations establish that linguistic meaning is constituted by communal practice, not prior metaphysical structures.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Communities themselves require rule-following: explaining meaning via communal practice presupposes the very concept of rule-following it purports to ground.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mathematical and logical truths appear mind-independent: their objective validity suggests meaning transcends contingent communal agreement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Wittgenstein's argument overgeneralizes: some meanings (e.g., 'pain') may have both communal and phenomenological foundations, not purely social constitution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Private ostensive definition fails: individuals cannot establish meaning alone without public criteria of correctness from community practices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Meaning requires normativity: only shared social practices provide the communal standards that distinguish correct from incorrect rule-following.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Empirically, children acquire language through socialization, not by consulting pre-existing metaphysical essences independent of cultural context.
?
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.