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 no linguistic norm can be genuinely private, since meaning is constituted through shared practice.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Private mental states can function normatively for individuals without public verification; introspective consistency suffices for personal rule-following.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Wittgenstein conflates the epistemology of verification with the metaphysics of meaning; privacy doesn't entail that norms lack genuine normative force.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Shared practices themselves originate from individuals' rule-following; treating shared practice as foundational is circular rather than explanatory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rule-following requires criteria for correctness that distinguish right from wrong applications, which private ostensive definition cannot establish.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Meaning depends on the possibility of error and correction; a private rule-follower cannot distinguish genuine error from feeling of correctness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Linguistic normativity requires public criteria; without shared practice, there is no basis for claiming one application 'follows' a rule rather than another.
?
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.