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 no private mental act can fix the normative correctness conditions that meaning requires.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Normative correctness can emerge from individual dispositions and patterns without requiring transcendent, mind-independent facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates epistemological privacy with metaphysical privacy—mental acts can fix meaning even if only the subject accesses them directly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Community agreement itself depends on individuals' private understandings; rejecting all private fixation undermines the communal alternative.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mental acts are intrinsically private and accessible only to the subject, making them unsuitable as public normative standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Meaning requires objective correctness conditions; what counts as following a rule correctly must transcend individual interpretation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The regress problem shows private acts cannot self-justify their normative force without circular appeal to further mental acts.
?
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.