Repository | Journal | Volume | Articles
(2009) Synthese 171 (3).
Wright is correct in surmising that Wittgenstein’s refusal to be drawn into the metaphysical and epistemological questions that his own discussion of rules allegedly raises results from his rejection of the assumptions that pit the Platonist against the communitarian. This paper shows why the entire idea (which continues to dazzle philosophers)—that in speaking a language or in engaging in other normative practices we are operating a calculus according to strict rules—has to be rejected. It results, in part, from the conflation of different understandings of ‘knowing the rules’: one in which rules can be ‘read off’ from the practice by a theorist and those in which expressions of rules are consulted within the course of the practice.
Publication details
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-008-9326-6
Full citation:
Tanney, J. (2009). Real rules. Synthese 171 (3), pp. 499-507.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.