PLA

1
PLA

• (1) argument for the conditions for the
  possibility of meaning
• (2) PL founded on introspective ostensive
  definition (IOD), not possible for others to know
  its meaning (243)
• (3) can IOD calibration?
• (4) problems with OD

2
ostensive definition

• OD works in a context, surroundings, grammar
• Is grammar of pain talk provided by behavioiur?
• Does this make Wittgenstein a behaviourist?

3
PL and grammar

• If a PL makes sense, it should be possible to
  imagine a PL detached from the ordinary grammar
  of sensation talk, detached from the usual
  contexts in which we talk about sensations.

4
258

• thought experiment
• PL keeps a diary, terms defined by IOD
• IOD must provide calibration for S
• IOD must provide standards of correctness for use
  of S
• diarist is radically free with S
• So,
• (5) IOD does not provide calibration

5
freedom?

• How does PL verify use of S is correct?
• How does PL verify memory is correct?
• Why does PL need public checkability?
• If right seems right no calibration
• freedom from correction/
• freedom from sense of correction

6
right/seems right

• Epistemological others assist in the account of
  how to tell when S is used right as opposed to
  merely seems right (others as good guides)
• Metaphysical others are constitutive of the
  account of the right/seems right distinction

7
3 arguments

• (i) scepticism is this S again?
• (ii) scepticism re meaning Do I still mean by
  S what I meant yesterday?
• (iii) No present case meaning.

8
rule-following I

• meaning is normative
• we use words according to rules
• rules show how words should be used/ought to be
  used
• What gives the ought?
• E.g. 2
• 2, 4, 6, 8.
• If you understand the meaning, you ought to say
  10 next.

9
radical sceptic

• we learn 2 with, 2, 4, 6, 8etc.
• what if our pupil gets to 1000, and then says,
  1004, 1008?
• Whats the mistake?

10
source of the ought

• Everything youve learned with 2 is
  compatible with
• 2 means add 2 up to 1000, otherwise 4
• disjunctive rule

11
regress of signs

• If,
• How does 2 oblige us to X?
• is a real question, then its no answer to say,
• 2 obliges us to X because we mean p
• where p is some other way of expressing the
  meaning of 2
• The original question was how does a sign oblige
  us, the answer is, try another sign!

12
radical freedom

• what constrains me with 2?
• not the sign.
• the meaning? whats that without offering
  another sign?
• ? other sign users ?
• freedom is constrained by public use.

13
rule-following II

• threat of radical freedom
• idea of instability of meaning
• if meaning is that unstable, no such thing as
  meaning
• scepticism is a reductio ad absurdum
• So,
• (5) meaning is essentially public public check
  on private freedoms

14
3 arguments

• (i) scepticism is this S again?
• (ii) scepticism re meaning Do I still mean by
  S what I meant yesterday?
• (iii) No present case meaning.

15
PLA - challenge

• (1) Whats the metaphysics or model of standards?
• (2) How is private use constrained?
• Challenge/open question
• (3) Calibration must be against something
  independent
• possible answer (for Descartes)
• (4) The standard is God