This sounds like Hacker’s reading of Wittgenstein. — Joshs
t's a pity there's so little in Wittgenstein about games evolving or morphing into other games, so that his readers, especially the less sympathetic, have always had to deal with the temptation to take "game" as indicating a closed, static rule system. — Srap Tasmaner
You may be interested/challenged by Cavell's reading, which I draw out in the first post, as he compares it with Kripke's, who puts an emphasis on rules, and neither take the claim to be that there is a fundamental justification. As a teaser, Cavell points out that we are only inclined to, as he reads it, throw up our hands. — Antony Nickles
This would be why he says he is not advancing theories, because for anything to have value as a grammatical claim, we have to come to it on our own, and then he hasn't really told us anything we didn't already know. — Antony Nickles
There is a difference between a grammatical claim and a definition, but I wanted to acknowledge the democratic affinity. — Antony Nickles
Why is it impossible for the teacher to know "all there is about justice"? Surely they can know enough to teach a student what the word "justice" means (i.e. how to use the word "justice"). After all, didn't someone teach you what "justice" means? And couldn't you teach the meaning of the word to someone else? — Luke
Examples are necessary because we can not explain rules for our concepts that cover every situation--account for every context or predict the way in which they may go wrong. — Antony Nickles
we are at the moment at which something falls apart: your understanding, our conventions, the "automatic" naturalness of expression and reception, and, in particular--what Witt is discussing here (PI #217, above)--the end of our ability to justify our actions to each other. It is, unfortunately, a tortured thread; I appreciate the interest. — Antony Nickles
If I have exhausted the justifications, I have reached bedrock and my spade is turned. — PI 217
Hutchinson’s point is that the background conventions do not do this work of understanding by themselves. They don’t exist independently of person-relative, occasion sensitive use. — Joshs
The actual use can "co-invent the sense of the rule, grammar", but ... that is a change in the rules, not an end to the rules. — Luke
If actual contextual use offers a fresh sense of a rule, and we only know rules in actual use , where is an ‘unchanged’ rule stored? Is there some internal or social non-contextual realm where they are kept protected from alteration? — Joshs
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Tip 'o the hat to some forgotten wag. — James Riley
Suddenly BINK, the lights go out and there is no experience good or bad for that particular subject. — boagie