Rule-following and the objectivity of proof

In Annalisa Coliva & Eva Picardi (eds.), Wittgenstein Today. Il poligrafo. pp. 185--200 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Ideas on meaning, rules and mathematical proofs abound in Wittgenstein’s writings. The undeniable fact that they are present together, sometimes intertwined in the same passage of Philosophical Investigations or Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, does not show, however, that the connection between these ideas is necessary or inextricable. The possibility remains, and ought to be checked, that they can be plausibly and consistently separated. I am going to examine two views detectable in Wittgenstein’s works: one about proofs, the other about meaning and rules. The first is the denial of the objectivity of proof. The second is a conception of meaning stemming from the rule-following considerations. I shall argue that, though Wittgenstein seems to conjoin the two views, they can be, and should be, separated1.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
652 (#25,019)

6 months
58 (#73,829)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Cesare Cozzo
Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Wittgenstein on rules and private language.Saul A. Kripke - 1982 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 173 (4):496-499.
Proofs and refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery.Imre Lakatos (ed.) - 1976 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein on following a rule.John McDowell - 1984 - Synthese 58 (March):325-364.
Wittgenstein on the Foundations of Mathematics.Crispin Wright - 1980 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics.Michael Dummett - 1959 - Philosophical Review 68 (3):324-348.

View all 10 references / Add more references