|THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WITTGENSTEIN’S TREATMENT OF RULE-FOLLOWING IN PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS|
|Written by GEORGE LAZAROIU|
ABSTRACT. Patterson notes that Wittgenstein explicitly rejects the idea that understanding or grasping a rule is a matter of interpretation. Marmor claims that Wittgenstein’s concern with what following a rule consists derives from his conception of meaning. Morawetz states that the difference between having a practice and having factual knowledge can be explained by the distinction between losing the ability to use a certain tool and questioning a fact. Easterbrook says that Wittgenstein shows that no system of language can be self-contained and that meaning thus must depend in part on logical structure and understandings supplied by a community of readers. (pp. 180–184)
Notice to readers
In order to view full text of this article, you must be a paid Addleton journals subscriber or purchase electronic access to this article. You may also purchase a print copy of this article.