Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMiller, Alex
dc.contributor.advisorCheyne, Colin
dc.contributor.authorWee Ming Kho, Daniel
dc.date.available2016-02-09T20:04:32Z
dc.date.copyright2016
dc.identifier.citationWee Ming Kho, D. (2016). Wittgenstein, objectivity and rule-following: towards resolving the communitarian vs. individualism debate (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/6204en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/6204
dc.description.abstractThe question of whether the concept of a rule-follower presupposes more than a single individual came into prominence in the wake of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s considerations on rule-following, found primarily in his Philosophical Investigations (1953). Since then, a debate on the substantive side of the question (in addition to an exegetical one) has been waged between three sides, namely individualists, communitarians, and quietists. Briefly, individualists claim that the concept of a rule-follower does not presuppose more than one individual, while communitarians contend that it does so presuppose, and finally quietists argue that there is no determinate answer to the question. This thesis is an attempt to work towards resolving the debate on the substantive question by examining the arguments proposed by these three sides and deciding which of them is the most tenable. The individualist arguments I contend with include those from A. J. Ayer, G. P. Baker and P. M. S. Hacker, Simon Blackburn, John Canfield, Grant Gillett, and Jussi Haukioja. The communitarian arguments evaluated here include those from Donald Davidson, Norman Malcolm, John McDowell, Rush Rhees, Claudine Verheggen, Meredith Williams, and Saul Kripke’s Wittgenstein. Finally, I also examine the arguments of the proponents of quietism, namely Edward Minar and Martin Gustafsson. I argue that the proponents of all three sides of the debate have thus far failed to present convincing cases for their claims. Individualists have largely neglected to take their opponents’ arguments into account and so risk begging the question against them, the arguments of the communitarians lack crucial justification, and the quietists’ attempts at undermining either side rely on misconceptions of the debate itself. However, the work done here in considering all these arguments enables us to see that individualism emerges as the most tenable position to hold in the end.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Otago
dc.rightsAll items in OUR Archive are provided for private study and research purposes and are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
dc.subjectWittgenstein
dc.subjectRule-following
dc.subjectCommunitarianism
dc.subjectIndividualism
dc.subjectQuietism
dc.titleWittgenstein, objectivity and rule-following: towards resolving the communitarian vs. individualism debate
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.updated2016-02-09T08:13:31Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
thesis.degree.disciplinePhilosophy
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophy
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Otago
thesis.degree.levelDoctoral
otago.openaccessOpen
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record