Talk:Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Language / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of language
	Contemporary philosophy

Linguistics: Philosophy of language Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

[Untitled]

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

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)[reply]

The rating is not a big deal. Most articles start out at low importance and are move up. (four years later sometimes) Greg Bard (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)--[reply]

I added a section called "straight solution," since the section on skeptical solution suggested there are two ways one could address the problem, and in fact different philosophers have interpreted Wittgenstein as taking both of these routes. In particular, McDowell thinks Wittgenstein gives a straight solution. I'm not familiar enough with Kripke, to fill in the skeptical solution section however. The straight solution section is notably missing a citation from Crispin Wright; I'll add this shortly.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Controversies" - NOR/NPOV violation?

The "Controversies" section doesn't actually document controversies, it looks like some editor's POV about Kripke's positions on Wittgenstein. Maybe the positions given don't seriously represent past or extant controversies, but at a minimum there should be citations. Yakushima (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong controversy over Kripke. Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker in particular believe Kripke's interpretation is quite wrong. It's half a lifetime since I studied this and I've no time to redo my undergrad philosophy studies; if someone else could put some references in, that would be great. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through some admittedly cursory Googling, I found the following list of sources that discuss WORAPL: http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~witt/kbookbiblio.html . While I cannot verify (or deny) that any of them put forth any of the criticisms given in the relevant section of _this_ article, but I hope at least this may be a starting point for sourcing (and/or revising) that section. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the skeptical solution?

This article doesn't say what the skeptical solution is, though it has a section "about" it. Can someone add this?--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "straight" Solution

This section seems out of place as it is not about Kripke's book but instead about alternative interpretations of Wittgenstein. For example, [Crispin Wright]'s work appears to precede Kripke's.. Tomasohara (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]