Wittgenstein, in his work Philosophical Investigations, formulates a paradox that implores the reader to become skeptical of our ability to apply past learned rules to present situations. Specifically targeting the idea that if we do in fact learn rules from a finite amount of cases in the past, how can we be certain that we ought to follow through with said rule for all future cases. Later on, Saul Kripke published a book titled On rules and Private Language, in which he presents a version of Wittgenstein’s rule-following paradox. He states that the paradox he is presenting is neither his nor Wittgenstein’s interpretation of the paradox, but rather how the paradox’s central issues appeared to him as he read. This explanation of the paradox
…show more content…
The solutions of a paradox can be separated further into two categories; Straight solutions and Skeptical solutions. The former serves to prove that the paradox baseless and the later concedes that the paradox is fair, but that our actions are still justified. The resolution to this paradox, as Kripke sees it, is a skeptical one. He agrees with Wittgensteinin and the skeptic that meaning cannot be derived from determinant facts, but rather than an end, Kripke sees this as a reason to revaluate whether there even needs to be determinant facts for an individual to claim a meaning as true. A revaluation that he believes will move us from considering meaning with truth-conditions to using assertibility-conditions. This changes the requirement for rule-following to one that is decided by a community rather than the facts an individual may hold. This is to say that, we decide if an agent is following a rule, only if the community sees the agents actions as being a legitimate use of the rule. In the addition situation, the answerer would state that ‘68+57=125’ not because it’s a fact, but rather that if he were to answer 5 the community would see it as a misuse of the rule. It’s now about whether your language use can be justified by meeting the requirements set by the language
The solutions of a paradox can be separated further into two categories; Straight solutions and Skeptical solutions. The former serves to prove that the paradox baseless and the later concedes that the paradox is fair, but that our actions are still justified. The resolution to this paradox, as Kripke sees it, is a skeptical one. He agrees with Wittgensteinin and the skeptic that meaning cannot be derived from determinant facts, but rather than an end, Kripke sees this as a reason to revaluate whether there even needs to be determinant facts for an individual to claim a meaning as true. A revaluation that he believes will move us from considering meaning with truth-conditions to using assertibility-conditions. This changes the requirement for rule-following to one that is decided by a community rather than the facts an individual may hold. This is to say that, we decide if an agent is following a rule, only if the community sees the agents actions as being a legitimate use of the rule. In the addition situation, the answerer would state that ‘68+57=125’ not because it’s a fact, but rather that if he were to answer 5 the community would see it as a misuse of the rule. It’s now about whether your language use can be justified by meeting the requirements set by the language