Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    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 citing a rule does not itself settle how it applies without further interpretive context.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein conflates conceptual underdetermination with practical indeterminacy; we successfully apply rules consistently daily.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Community practice and training establish a shared standard that constrains interpretation without requiring explicit additional rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The rule-following paradox assumes rules must be self-applying; but meaning just is the use-pattern in a linguistic community.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A rule's symbols are intrinsically ambiguous: '+' could mean addition, or a deviant function that diverges at large numbers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Past applications of a rule underdetermine future ones; infinite rule-interpretations fit any finite history of use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Invoking another rule to clarify the first merely pushes the problem back; infinite regress of interpretations threatens.
      ?

      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.