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 concept use is normatively constrained by community practice, not just individual dispositions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Community practice itself consists of individual dispositions aggregated; appeal to community doesn't escape the dispositionalist problem, only defers it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Wittgenstein's private language argument targets incorrigible privacy, not individual rule-following; communities can still be wrong about meaning collectively.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Normative constraint requires explanation; saying 'community determines it' is descriptive of origin, not normative justification for rule-following behavior.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Private ostensive definitions cannot determine rule-following because a private sensation admits of unlimited interpretations without external constraint.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Actual linguistic competence requires shared criteria for correctness that individuals internalize through communal training and correction practices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If meaning were individual dispositions alone, speakers would have no grounds to correct each other or identify genuine linguistic mistakes.
?
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.