Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations imply that the normative application of 'feasible' is anchored in forms of life, not abstract mathematical definitions divorced from actual computational practice.
?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.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Relating to how things should be or what people ought to do, rather than just describing how things actually are.
rule-following considerations(in philosophy of language)
Wittgenstein's famous puzzle about how we know what rule to follow next: if you learn a rule by seeing examples, how do you know you're applying it correctly to new cases you've never seen before?