Talk:Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language

message: Made a new section entitled controversies to make the article structure clearer. 71.125.33.99 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: What? Low importance? What qualifies as "medium importance" in modern philosophy, if this book is of low importance? Perhaps philosophy is of low importance. :-D Kronocide 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rating is not a big deal. Most articles start out at low importance and are move up. (four years later sometimes) Greg Bard (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Importance rating 

message: Shouldn't the title of this page be the title of Kripke's book, "Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language"? Barn2107 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Moved. The lead still mentions "Kripkenstein" so that people following the redirect don't get confused. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I cleaned up all of the references in the article where is said "plus or +".  The reason is that the skeptical problem isn't about whether 57+68=125 arithmetically, but whether the user intends the '+' function when they state "57 plus 68".  Therefore, I also changed some of the language about the choosing of a mathematical example.  I do think that Kripke chose it intentionally, since there's a very clear arithmetic definition; but the question is about meaning and justification of usage, not of arithmetic (see pg. 13) Philosophygeek (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the usage of '+' vs 'plus' 

message: The "Controversies" section doesn't actually document controversies, it looks like some editor's POV about Kripke's positions on Wittgenstein.  Maybe the positions given don't seriously represent past or extant controversies, but at a minimum there should be citations. Yakushima (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a strong controversy over Kripke. Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker in particular believe Kripke's interpretation is quite wrong. It's half a lifetime since I studied this and I've no time to redo my undergrad philosophy studies; if someone else could put some references in, that would be great. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Through some admittedly cursory Googling, I found the following list of sources that discuss WORAPL: http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~witt/kbookbiblio.html .  While I cannot verify (or deny) that any of them put forth any of the criticisms given in the relevant section of _this_ article, but I hope at least this may be a starting point for sourcing (and/or revising) that section. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversies" - NOR/NPOV violation? 

message: This article doesn't say what the skeptical solution is, though it has a section "about" it. Can someone add this?--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the skeptical solution?

message: This section seems out of place as it is not about Kripke's book but instead about alternative interpretations of Wittgenstein. For example, [Crispin Wright]'s work appears to precede Kripke's..
Tomasohara (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The "straight" Solution