According To John Wittgenstein's Maddy, What Do Philosophers

In Maddy, What do Philosophers do, lecture 3; section 2 first examines the question that why is it if we fail at meeting the ‘from scratch’ challenge, that it weakens all our ordinary evidence. Maddy goes on to ask why is the ‘from scratch’ challenge to be so dangerous that we should just rule it out. Moore thinks it is because the philosopher doesn’t think of common sense as important while Wittgenstein thinks that skepticism and anti- skepticism are two different languages with their own rules. The Plain Inquirer, Maddy, and Wittgenstein accept the fact that they cannot meet the ‘from scratch’ challenge to rule out skepticism but they still strongly believe that given all the information, experience, and methods given to them about the external world, they have no reason to doubt their beliefs. To sum up, Maddy, and Wittgenstein …show more content…
Going back to the ‘rule following paradox’, the voice of temptation is the instructor that thinks 1002 is correct and goes on to back up the claims. Wittgenstein’s goal here is to treat them both with a possible cure to the disease of Philosophy. The two voices are caught up in the fact that what the instructor is teaching is not enough for them to grasp the information and be able to express her meaning. Wittgenstein tries to treat them by explaining a way of being able to grasp a certain rule in arithmetic by what he calls, ‘following the rule’ and ‘going against it’. Maddy states that we now must follow back on the everyday practice of rule following. If he writes 1004, we think he is does not understand the concept. In arithmetic there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Everyone is trained to follow a rule. However, the ways of learning that rule can vary from person to person. We know though that the arithmetic is socially acceptable just as Wittgenstein