Krripke's Wittgestein and the Analogy between Rules and Grounds
Main Article Content
Abstract
I explore an argument for epistemic non-factualism, the thesis that epistemic attributions do not describe facts. The argument is analogous to but independent of Kripke’s Wittgenstein’s argument for non-factualism about rule-following. Some objections to the two arguments are considered and rejected, in particular accusations of incoherence and “reductivism”. The epistemic argument and a “skeptical solution” to it are argued to be part of Wittgenstein’s conception in On Certainty.
Downloads
Article Details
The author is required to sign a letter for the transferal of rights, and to authorize the distribution of his or her article through any format.
The reproduction of articles —but not of images—is permitted, provided the source is cited and the authors’ rights respected.
Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.