Saul Kripke, The Rule-Following Considerations Revisited

[@meeduoh]

I'm writing my master's thesis on the Kripkenstein. In it, I specifically used the example of switching from base 10 to base 12 to explain the problem. Glad to know Kripke and I are aligned!

[@jmike2039]

I loved that smashing from Kripke in regard to his critics always complaining that he misinterpreted Wittgenstein. Ok. So then does that invalidate the problem kripkenstein proposes? Clearly not.

[@NeilDelaney19761990]

There are a number of notions in the same neighborhood: feeling guided by the rule as if by a spell, having one's calculation "look/feel right", and so on that it seems SK wants to take seriously, or at least at face value to begin with. I wonder if simplicity considerations belong in this loose grouping.

[@firstal3799]

You have patience of monk if you went thtought whole video

[@objectsofintuition]

In brief: they are, pro tanto, a reason to prefer one proposal about what the speaker means over another. Per some authors, the plus-hypothesis is preferable to the quus hypothesis, being explanatorily simpler. Allan Gibbard's 2012 book takes this approach; see also one of the two solutions in Derek Green's 2023 article in Erkenntnis. That's why; as to whether they belong (in the sense of "deserve to be considered"), well, yes, a good question.

[@RenRealism]

Lazy presentation. How pathetic