Resistance distance: Difference between revisions
en>RjwilmsiBot m →References: fixing page range dashes using AWB (8010) |
en>Bibcode Bot m Adding 0 arxiv eprint(s), 2 bibcode(s) and 0 doi(s). Did it miss something? Report bugs, errors, and suggestions at User talk:Bibcode Bot |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Italic title}} | |||
{{Wittgenstein}} | |||
'''''Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language''''' by [[philosopher of language]] [[Saul Kripke]] was first published in 1982. The book contends that the central argument of [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s ''[[Philosophical Investigations]]'' centers on a devastating rule-following paradox that undermines the possibility of us ever following rules in our use of language. Kripke writes that this paradox is "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date" (p. 60). He argues that Wittgenstein does not reject the argument that leads to the rule-following paradox, but accepts it and offers a 'skeptical solution' to alleviate the paradox's destructive effects. | |||
While most commentators accept that the ''Philosophical Investigations'' contains the rule-following paradox as Kripke presents it, few have concurred in attributing Kripke's skeptical solution to Wittgenstein. Kripke expresses doubts in ''Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language'' as to whether Wittgenstein would endorse his interpretation of the ''Philosophical Investigations''. He says that the work should not be read as an attempt to give an accurate statement of Wittgenstein's views, but rather as an account of Wittgenstein's argument "as it struck Kripke, as it presented a problem for him" (p. 5). The [[portmanteau]] "Kripkenstein" has been coined as a nickname for a fictional person who holds the views expressed by Kripke's reading of the ''Philosophical Investigations''; in this way, it is convenient to speak of Kripke's own views, Wittgenstein's views (as generally understood), and Kripkenstein's views. Wittgenstein scholar David G. Stern considers the book to be the most influential and widely discussed work on Wittgenstein since the 1980s.<ref>Stern, David G. 2006. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 2</ref> | |||
== The rule-following paradox == | |||
In ''PI'' 201a Wittgenstein explicitly states the rule-following paradox: "This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule". Kripke gives a mathematical example to illustrate the reasoning that leads to this conclusion. Suppose that you have never added numbers greater than 50 before. Further, suppose that you are asked to perform the computation '68 + 57'. Our natural inclination is that you will apply the addition function as you have before, and calculate that the correct answer is '125'. But now imagine that a bizarre skeptic comes along and argues: | |||
# That there is no fact about your past usage of the addition function that determines '125' as the right answer. | |||
# That nothing justifies you in giving this answer rather than another. | |||
After all, the skeptic reasons, by hypothesis you have never added numbers greater than 50 before. It is perfectly consistent with your previous use of 'plus' that you actually meant it to mean the 'quus' function, defined as: | |||
<blockquote><math>\text{x quus y}= \begin{cases} \text{x + y} & \text{if }x,y <57 \\[12pt] 5 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} </math></blockquote> | |||
The skeptic argues that there is no fact about you that determines that you ought to answer '125' rather than '5'. Your past usage of the addition function is susceptible to an infinite number of different quus-like interpretations. It appears that every new application of 'plus', rather than being governed by a strict, unambiguous rule, is actually a leap in the dark. | |||
The obvious objection to this procedure is that the addition function is not defined by a number of examples, but by a general rule or algorithm. But then the algorithm itself will contain terms that are susceptible to different and incompatible interpretations, and the skeptical problem simply resurfaces at a higher level. In short, rules for interpreting rules provide no help, because they themselves can be interpreted in different ways. Or, as Wittgenstein himself puts it, "any interpretation still hangs in the air along with what it interprets, and cannot give it any support. Interpretations by themselves do not determine meaning" (''PI'' 198a). | |||
Similar skeptical reasoning can be applied to any word of any human language. The power of Kripke's example is that in mathematics the rules for the use of expressions appear to be defined clearly for an infinite number of cases. Kripke doesn't question the validity in mathematics of the '+' function, but rather the meta-linguistic usage of 'plus': what fact can we point to that shows that 'plus' refers to the mathematical function '+'. | |||
== The skeptical solution == | |||
Kripke, following [[David Hume]], distinguishes between two types of solution to skeptical paradoxes. Straight solutions dissolve paradoxes by rejecting one (or more) of the premises that lead to them. Skeptical solutions accept the truth of the paradox, but argue that it does not undermine our ordinary beliefs and practices in the way it seems to. Because Kripke thinks that Wittgenstein endorses the skeptical paradox, he is committed to the view that Wittgenstein offers a skeptical, and not a straight, solution. <Ref name="Fitch">{{Cite book | title = Saul Kripke | year = 2004 | publisher = McGill-Queen's University Press | location = Montreal | isbn = 0-7735-2885-7| author = Fitch, G. W.}} | |||
</ref> | |||
The rule-following paradox threatens our ordinary beliefs and practices concerning meaning because it implies that there is no such thing as meaning something by an expression or sentence. [[John McDowell]] explains this as follows. We are inclined to think of meaning in contractual terms: that is, that meanings commit or oblige us to use words in a certain way. When you grasp the meaning of the word "dog", for example, you know that you ought to use that word to refer to dogs, and not cats. Now, if there cannot be rules governing the uses of words, as the rule-following paradox apparently shows, this intuitive notion of meaning is utterly undermined. | |||
Kripke’s view of the [[Philosophical Investigations]] disagrees with other commentators who suggest the [[Private language argument]] is presented in sections after §256. Instead, Kripke insists the conclusion is explicitly stated by §202, which reads “Hence it is not possible to obey a rule ‘privately’: otherwise thinking one was obeying a rule would be the same as obeying it.” Further, Kripke identifies Wittgenstein’s interests in the philosophy of mind as being related to his interests in the foundations of mathematics, in that both subjects require considerations concerning rules and rule following. (WRPL 4) | |||
Kripke's skeptical solution is this: A language-user's following a rule correctly is not justified by any fact that obtains about the relationship between his candidate application of a rule in a particular case, and the putative rule itself (as for Hume the causal link between two events ''a'' and ''b'' is not determined by any particular fact obtaining between them ''taken in isolation''), but rather the assertion that the rule is being followed is justified by the fact that the behaviors surrounding the candidate instance of rule-following (by the candidate rule-follower) meet the expectations of other language users. That the solution is not based on a fact about ''a particular instance'' of putative rule-following-- as it would be if it were based on some mental state of meaning, interpretation, or intention-- shows that this solution is skeptical in the sense Kripke specifies.<ref>(WRPL)</ref> | |||
==The "straight" Solution== | |||
In contrast to the kind of solution offered by Kripke (above) and Crispin Wright (elsewhere), John McDowell interprets Wittgenstein as correctly (by McDowell's lights) offering a "straight solution".<ref>{{cite journal|last=McDowell|first=John|title=WIttgenstein on following a Rule|journal=Synthese|date=March 1984|volume=58|issue=4|pages=325–363.|url=http://www.springerlink.com/index/x2k8345332703122.pdf}}</ref> McDowell argues that Wittgenstein does present the paradox (as Kripke argues), but he argues further that Wittgenstein rejects the paradox on the grounds that it assimilates understanding and interpretation. Meaning that in order to understand something, we must have an interpretation. That is, to understand what is meant by "plus," we must first have an interpretation of what "plus" means. This leads one to either skepticism - how do you know your interpretation is the correct interpretation?- or relativity whereby our understandings, and thus interpretations, are only so determined in so far as we have used them. In this latter view, endorsed by Wittgenstein in Wright's readings, there are no facts about numerical addition that man has so far not discovered,so when we come upon such situations, we can flesh out our interpretations further. Both of these alternatives are quite unsatisfying; the latter because we want to say that the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way: that there are facts about numbers, that have not yet been added. | |||
McDowell writes further, in his interpretation of Wittgenstein, that to understand rule-following we should understand it as resulting from inculcation into a custom or practice. Thus, to understand addition, is simply to have been inculcated into a practice of adding. | |||
==Notes== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
==Further reading== | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| last = Kripke | |||
| first = Saul | |||
| authorlink = Saul Kripke | |||
| coauthors = | |||
| title = Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. | |||
| publisher = Harvard University Press | |||
| year = 1982 | |||
| location = | |||
| url = | |||
| doi = | |||
| isbn = 0-674-95401-7 }} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| last = Wittgenstein | |||
| first = Ludwig | |||
| authorlink = Ludwig Wittgenstein | |||
| coauthors = | |||
| title = Philosophical Investigations | |||
| publisher = Blackwell Publishing | |||
| date = 1953/2001 | |||
| location = | |||
| url = | |||
| doi = | |||
| isbn = 0-631-23127-7}} | |||
* {{Cite book | |||
| title = Skepticism, Rules and Language | |||
| year = 1986 | |||
| author = Baker, G. P. and Hacker, P. M. S. | |||
| publisher = Blackwell Publishers | |||
| isbn = 0-631-14703-9 }} | |||
* {{Cite book | |||
| author = McGinn, Colin | |||
| title = Wittgenstein on meaning: an interpretation and evaluation | |||
| year = 1984 | |||
| publisher = Blackwell | |||
| location = Oxford | |||
| isbn = 0-631-15681-X }} | |||
[[Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein]] | |||
[[Category:Analytic philosophy]] | |||
[[Category:Philosophy of language literature]] | |||
[[Category:1982 books]] | |||
[[fr:Saul Kripke#Wittgenstein]] | |||
Revision as of 20:19, 27 July 2013
Template:Italic title Template:Wittgenstein Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language by philosopher of language Saul Kripke was first published in 1982. The book contends that the central argument of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations centers on a devastating rule-following paradox that undermines the possibility of us ever following rules in our use of language. Kripke writes that this paradox is "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date" (p. 60). He argues that Wittgenstein does not reject the argument that leads to the rule-following paradox, but accepts it and offers a 'skeptical solution' to alleviate the paradox's destructive effects.
While most commentators accept that the Philosophical Investigations contains the rule-following paradox as Kripke presents it, few have concurred in attributing Kripke's skeptical solution to Wittgenstein. Kripke expresses doubts in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language as to whether Wittgenstein would endorse his interpretation of the Philosophical Investigations. He says that the work should not be read as an attempt to give an accurate statement of Wittgenstein's views, but rather as an account of Wittgenstein's argument "as it struck Kripke, as it presented a problem for him" (p. 5). The portmanteau "Kripkenstein" has been coined as a nickname for a fictional person who holds the views expressed by Kripke's reading of the Philosophical Investigations; in this way, it is convenient to speak of Kripke's own views, Wittgenstein's views (as generally understood), and Kripkenstein's views. Wittgenstein scholar David G. Stern considers the book to be the most influential and widely discussed work on Wittgenstein since the 1980s.[1]
The rule-following paradox
In PI 201a Wittgenstein explicitly states the rule-following paradox: "This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule". Kripke gives a mathematical example to illustrate the reasoning that leads to this conclusion. Suppose that you have never added numbers greater than 50 before. Further, suppose that you are asked to perform the computation '68 + 57'. Our natural inclination is that you will apply the addition function as you have before, and calculate that the correct answer is '125'. But now imagine that a bizarre skeptic comes along and argues:
- That there is no fact about your past usage of the addition function that determines '125' as the right answer.
- That nothing justifies you in giving this answer rather than another.
After all, the skeptic reasons, by hypothesis you have never added numbers greater than 50 before. It is perfectly consistent with your previous use of 'plus' that you actually meant it to mean the 'quus' function, defined as:
![{\displaystyle {\text{x quus y}}={\begin{cases}{\text{x + y}}&{\text{if }}x,y<57\\[12pt]5&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8871ed18de6b3fe8d2245da04413ab456ed6368d)
The skeptic argues that there is no fact about you that determines that you ought to answer '125' rather than '5'. Your past usage of the addition function is susceptible to an infinite number of different quus-like interpretations. It appears that every new application of 'plus', rather than being governed by a strict, unambiguous rule, is actually a leap in the dark.
The obvious objection to this procedure is that the addition function is not defined by a number of examples, but by a general rule or algorithm. But then the algorithm itself will contain terms that are susceptible to different and incompatible interpretations, and the skeptical problem simply resurfaces at a higher level. In short, rules for interpreting rules provide no help, because they themselves can be interpreted in different ways. Or, as Wittgenstein himself puts it, "any interpretation still hangs in the air along with what it interprets, and cannot give it any support. Interpretations by themselves do not determine meaning" (PI 198a).
Similar skeptical reasoning can be applied to any word of any human language. The power of Kripke's example is that in mathematics the rules for the use of expressions appear to be defined clearly for an infinite number of cases. Kripke doesn't question the validity in mathematics of the '+' function, but rather the meta-linguistic usage of 'plus': what fact can we point to that shows that 'plus' refers to the mathematical function '+'.
The skeptical solution
Kripke, following David Hume, distinguishes between two types of solution to skeptical paradoxes. Straight solutions dissolve paradoxes by rejecting one (or more) of the premises that lead to them. Skeptical solutions accept the truth of the paradox, but argue that it does not undermine our ordinary beliefs and practices in the way it seems to. Because Kripke thinks that Wittgenstein endorses the skeptical paradox, he is committed to the view that Wittgenstein offers a skeptical, and not a straight, solution. [2]
The rule-following paradox threatens our ordinary beliefs and practices concerning meaning because it implies that there is no such thing as meaning something by an expression or sentence. John McDowell explains this as follows. We are inclined to think of meaning in contractual terms: that is, that meanings commit or oblige us to use words in a certain way. When you grasp the meaning of the word "dog", for example, you know that you ought to use that word to refer to dogs, and not cats. Now, if there cannot be rules governing the uses of words, as the rule-following paradox apparently shows, this intuitive notion of meaning is utterly undermined.
Kripke’s view of the Philosophical Investigations disagrees with other commentators who suggest the Private language argument is presented in sections after §256. Instead, Kripke insists the conclusion is explicitly stated by §202, which reads “Hence it is not possible to obey a rule ‘privately’: otherwise thinking one was obeying a rule would be the same as obeying it.” Further, Kripke identifies Wittgenstein’s interests in the philosophy of mind as being related to his interests in the foundations of mathematics, in that both subjects require considerations concerning rules and rule following. (WRPL 4)
Kripke's skeptical solution is this: A language-user's following a rule correctly is not justified by any fact that obtains about the relationship between his candidate application of a rule in a particular case, and the putative rule itself (as for Hume the causal link between two events a and b is not determined by any particular fact obtaining between them taken in isolation), but rather the assertion that the rule is being followed is justified by the fact that the behaviors surrounding the candidate instance of rule-following (by the candidate rule-follower) meet the expectations of other language users. That the solution is not based on a fact about a particular instance of putative rule-following-- as it would be if it were based on some mental state of meaning, interpretation, or intention-- shows that this solution is skeptical in the sense Kripke specifies.[3]
The "straight" Solution
In contrast to the kind of solution offered by Kripke (above) and Crispin Wright (elsewhere), John McDowell interprets Wittgenstein as correctly (by McDowell's lights) offering a "straight solution".[4] McDowell argues that Wittgenstein does present the paradox (as Kripke argues), but he argues further that Wittgenstein rejects the paradox on the grounds that it assimilates understanding and interpretation. Meaning that in order to understand something, we must have an interpretation. That is, to understand what is meant by "plus," we must first have an interpretation of what "plus" means. This leads one to either skepticism - how do you know your interpretation is the correct interpretation?- or relativity whereby our understandings, and thus interpretations, are only so determined in so far as we have used them. In this latter view, endorsed by Wittgenstein in Wright's readings, there are no facts about numerical addition that man has so far not discovered,so when we come upon such situations, we can flesh out our interpretations further. Both of these alternatives are quite unsatisfying; the latter because we want to say that the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way: that there are facts about numbers, that have not yet been added.
McDowell writes further, in his interpretation of Wittgenstein, that to understand rule-following we should understand it as resulting from inculcation into a custom or practice. Thus, to understand addition, is simply to have been inculcated into a practice of adding.
Notes
43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.
Further reading
- 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
- 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
- 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
- 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
- ↑ Stern, David G. 2006. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 2
- ↑ 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534 - ↑ (WRPL)
- ↑ One of the biggest reasons investing in a Singapore new launch is an effective things is as a result of it is doable to be lent massive quantities of money at very low interest rates that you should utilize to purchase it. Then, if property values continue to go up, then you'll get a really high return on funding (ROI). Simply make sure you purchase one of the higher properties, reminiscent of the ones at Fernvale the Riverbank or any Singapore landed property Get Earnings by means of Renting
In its statement, the singapore property listing - website link, government claimed that the majority citizens buying their first residence won't be hurt by the new measures. Some concessions can even be prolonged to chose teams of consumers, similar to married couples with a minimum of one Singaporean partner who are purchasing their second property so long as they intend to promote their first residential property. Lower the LTV limit on housing loans granted by monetary establishments regulated by MAS from 70% to 60% for property purchasers who are individuals with a number of outstanding housing loans on the time of the brand new housing purchase. Singapore Property Measures - 30 August 2010 The most popular seek for the number of bedrooms in Singapore is 4, followed by 2 and three. Lush Acres EC @ Sengkang
Discover out more about real estate funding in the area, together with info on international funding incentives and property possession. Many Singaporeans have been investing in property across the causeway in recent years, attracted by comparatively low prices. However, those who need to exit their investments quickly are likely to face significant challenges when trying to sell their property – and could finally be stuck with a property they can't sell. Career improvement programmes, in-house valuation, auctions and administrative help, venture advertising and marketing, skilled talks and traisning are continuously planned for the sales associates to help them obtain better outcomes for his or her shoppers while at Knight Frank Singapore. No change Present Rules
Extending the tax exemption would help. The exemption, which may be as a lot as $2 million per family, covers individuals who negotiate a principal reduction on their existing mortgage, sell their house short (i.e., for lower than the excellent loans), or take part in a foreclosure course of. An extension of theexemption would seem like a common-sense means to assist stabilize the housing market, but the political turmoil around the fiscal-cliff negotiations means widespread sense could not win out. Home Minority Chief Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) believes that the mortgage relief provision will be on the table during the grand-cut price talks, in response to communications director Nadeam Elshami. Buying or promoting of blue mild bulbs is unlawful.
A vendor's stamp duty has been launched on industrial property for the primary time, at rates ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The Authorities might be trying to reassure the market that they aren't in opposition to foreigners and PRs investing in Singapore's property market. They imposed these measures because of extenuating components available in the market." The sale of new dual-key EC models will even be restricted to multi-generational households only. The models have two separate entrances, permitting grandparents, for example, to dwell separately. The vendor's stamp obligation takes effect right this moment and applies to industrial property and plots which might be offered inside three years of the date of buy. JLL named Best Performing Property Brand for second year running
The data offered is for normal info purposes only and isn't supposed to be personalised investment or monetary advice. Motley Fool Singapore contributor Stanley Lim would not personal shares in any corporations talked about. Singapore private home costs increased by 1.eight% within the fourth quarter of 2012, up from 0.6% within the earlier quarter. Resale prices of government-built HDB residences which are usually bought by Singaporeans, elevated by 2.5%, quarter on quarter, the quickest acquire in five quarters. And industrial property, prices are actually double the levels of three years ago. No withholding tax in the event you sell your property. All your local information regarding vital HDB policies, condominium launches, land growth, commercial property and more
There are various methods to go about discovering the precise property. Some local newspapers (together with the Straits Instances ) have categorised property sections and many local property brokers have websites. Now there are some specifics to consider when buying a 'new launch' rental. Intended use of the unit Every sale begins with 10 p.c low cost for finish of season sale; changes to 20 % discount storewide; follows by additional reduction of fiftyand ends with last discount of 70 % or extra. Typically there is even a warehouse sale or transferring out sale with huge mark-down of costs for stock clearance. Deborah Regulation from Expat Realtor shares her property market update, plus prime rental residences and houses at the moment available to lease Esparina EC @ Sengkang