Kripke’s/Wittgenstein, the idea of a single person following a rule in isolation doesn’t make sense. Explain their argument for this conclusion using a couple of examples.
Answering 2 questions (question 1 and question 2 either a or b)
You have to answer 2 questions of which number 1 has to be answered and number 2 you have a choice of either (a) or (b). Answer each questions in a page and a half. They have to be in 12pt font double spaced. No need to repeat the question. I will attach the class lectures and readings you have to use in answering these questions.Answer must be relevant to the question and from the reading.
1. Answer in a page and a half: According to Kripke’s/Wittgenstein, the idea of a single person following a rule in isolation doesn’t make sense. Explain their argument for this conclusion using a couple of examples.
2. Pick either one of these questions and answer in a page and a half :
(a) Ayer argues that it follows from the verification theory of meaning that ethical
sentences, such as the sentence ‘murder is wrong’, are neither true nor false but
nonsensical. Explain the verification theory, and Ayer’s argument from it to his
skeptical conclusions about ethics. Then give some reasons for thinking that the
verification theory can’t account for the meaningfulness of all meaningful
(b) Kripke argues that proper names (like ‘Obama’) don’t have the same meanings as definite descriptions (like ‘the current U.S. President’). Explain his arguments. Why do Kripke’s arguments give us a reason to believe that there are some truths that are necessary but neither knowable a priori or analytic?