Abstract

Tries to ravel out Wittgenstein's dictum that meaning is used in an attempt to forestall Kripke's ‘sceptic’, who draws the conclusion that there is no such thing as meaning on the grounds that mental objects cannot be brought to bear on the question of what a person means, and that mere conformity to linguistic practice is not sufficient for the determination of meaning. It is argued that the indeterminacy or problematic nature of meaning with respect to a certain class of facts does not entail that meaning is indeterminate or problematic.