Abstract

There is a striking parallel between w v o quine's 'indeterminacy of translation' thesis and k o apel's 'indeterminacy of textual interpretation thesis. both arguments are based on what is essentially the same 'sceptical dilemma'. the key to resolving these 'hermeneutic problems' is to recognize that such a 'sceptical problem' is unintelligible. this is precisely the point of wittgenstein's discussions of rule-following. many have misunderstood this, however, for they have misconstrued what was intended to be read as a "reductio ad absurdum" establishing the "unintelligibility" of the dilemma, as a sceptical attack on the possibility of our ever solving the problem