To follow a rule (e.g. ‘under circumstances , do ’, or ‘Whenever you see a cat, raise your arm’), we have to understand the concepts that are involved within (i.e. or cat, or raising one’s arm).
- However, to grasp a concept (such that the original rule can be followed) requires a further rule.
- Put another way, because rules have many interpretations, for any rule we need another rule which tells us whether or not we correctly applied .
- If a law says ‘Every man must serve in the army’, then it will naturally require a law for determining who qualifies as ‘man’. That law (say, ‘A man is whatever the scientific experts label with the word man’) will naturally require a law for determining who qualifies as ‘scientific expert’… the regress will continue if we try to adjudicate ‘scientific expert’ with another rule.
- This skepticism about rules is really a skepticism about a certain theory of meaning (i.e. semantic skepticism).