On the Kantian answer to "Kripkenstein"'s rule-following paradox

Przemysław Tacik

pp. 67-82

in: Michał Araszkiewicz, Paweł Banaś, Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki, Krzysztof Płeszka (eds), Problems of normativity, rules and rule-following, Berlin, Springer, 2015

Abstract

This chapter aims to put Saul Kripke's formulation of Wittgensteinian rule-following paradox in the context of Kant's critical philosophy. I attempt to argue that a thorough re-examination of the Kantian critique can contribute to our better understanding of this paradox, because Kant himself strove to overcome a parallel form of scepticism—Hume's. Moreover, I seek to demonstrate that Kantian views on normativity may contribute to avoiding the consequences of "Kripkenstein"'s radicalism without a simultaneous refutation of its main premises. Taking the interlinking between Hume's and Kripkenstein's thinking for a starting point, I attempt to reformulate Kantian arguments against Humean scepticism so that they could be applied to Kripkenstein's paradox. These reflections are organised around two main ideas of Kant's Critique: (1) arguments against the assumption of discontinuity of time; (2) the existence of two formal instances guaranteeing the coherence of experience: namely the "thing-in-itself" and the transcendental unity of apperception (TUA). Reassessment of the Kantian concept of the TUA gives an opportunity to propose a new perspective on normativity, whose core mechanism would lie in our readiness to correct ourselves. Finally, I juxtapose "Kripkenstein" and "Kantstein"—the latter being Kripke's imaginary opponent, who accepts some premises of the rule-following paradox, yet puts them in a broader context which explains our effective usage of rules.

Cited authors

Kant Immanuel

Wittgenstein Ludwig

Kripke Saul