>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>
> > Dear god! Am I insane? What am I thinking right now? If you can't answer
> > this question accurately then I'm right and all the nay-sayers are wrong.
> > End of story.
>That's like saying idealism can be refuted by kicking a stone. Read some
>LW, and I think you'll see that your argument here is pointless.
>
>Miles
Maybe you can summarize the key points in a paragraph or so? As I mentioned in another post, Wittgenstein's approach, according to Habermas,Wittgenstein implicitly equates semantic conventions with social conventions. He doesn't distinguish between the language and the grammar of language games. Habermas's action theory exceeds the capacity of the concept of rule-following - the semanticist approach fails to see that the concept of a rule applies to operations that are performed along with concrete actions.
ken