Talk:Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Made a new section entitled controversies to make the article structure clearer. 71.125.33.99 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] About the Importance rating

What? Low importance? What qualifies as "medium importance" in modern philosophy, if this book is of low importance? Perhaps philosophy is of low importance. :-D Kronocide 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Skeptical Solution

It's somewhat humorous that the section named The Skeptical Solution doesn't actually contain one word as to what the skeptical solution is. :-) And perhaps the stuff about how Kripke's interpretation of Wittgenstein differs from others' interpretations should not be in that section? Kronocide 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It was actually called The Sceptical Solution. Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronocide (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I think it would be quite useful if this article noted some of the ways in which "Kripkenstein"'s views are commonly held to differ from those of the actual Wittgenstein. Of particular note here, I gather, would be their supposedly differing views on the problem of rule-following. -Chinju 04:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do you have a good way to try to describe some of the differences succinctly? If so, don't hesitate to add them in. Some external links to essays critically discussing the Kripke reading would probably also be a benefit; I'll fetch some from The New Wittgenstein (for one) and add them later tonight.
As a side note, anyone know who originally coined the term "Kripkenstein", or first used it in print?
Radgeek 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
When I was a philosophy student at Cambridge (UK) in c.1991 I was told by a lecturer that the word had appeared in an essay written by a Cambridge student in his/her finals exam, which had been much noted by the examiners. At the time I was told this, the term was not apparently a widespread one in philosophy. So this may have been the origin - i.e. it was invented by an unnamed Cambridge student in an exam essay. Ben Finn 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it Kripke's is just an interpretation. He would argue that he was being faithful to the Philosophical Investigations. Colin McGinn in 'Wittgenstein on meaning' summarised very clearly where he felt Kripke had diverged from Wittgenstein. The gist of his argument was that (1) Wittgenstein discusses Private Language and rule following twice in philosophical investigations (2) Kripke thinks that both instances make the same argument but McGinn argues that Wittgenstein was making two independent arguments. I need to get a McGinn's book to remember more.--CharlieP 12:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)--

[edit] Title

Shouldn't the title of this page be the title of Kripke's book, "Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language"? Barn2107 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Moved. The lead still mentions "Kripkenstein" so that people following the redirect don't get confused. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, am only half way through the edit of this article, but am tired and need to go to bed. Will continue it soon. (Damn philosophy finals! They tire me out...) Barn2107 21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the usage of '+' vs 'plus'

I cleaned up all of the references in the article where is said "plus or +". The reason is that the skeptical problem isn't about whether 57+68=125 arithmetically, but whether the user intends the '+' function when they state "57 plus 68". Therefore, I also changed some of the language about the choosing of a mathematical example. I do think that Kripke chose it intentionally, since there's a very clear arithmetic definition; but the question is about meaning and justification of usage, not of arithmetic (see pg. 13) Philosophygeek (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)