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 show that applying concepts tracks shared social responses, not evaluation-transcendent norms.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Shared responses can be mistaken; communities have historically agreed on objectively false empirical and logical truths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Wittgenstein's critique targets private rule-following specifically, not all rule objectivity—leaving normative realism open.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mathematical and logical rules appear evaluation-transcendent: no community consensus makes 2+2=5 correct, even collectively.
?
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 cannot be found in private mental states or abstract platonism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box argument shows that ostensive definitions gain meaning only through communal agreement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Empirically, concept mastery develops through socialization; isolated individuals cannot establish stable rule applications.
?
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.