W ittgenstein's Anti‐Platonist Argument

Many interpreters have noted that §§138–242 of W ittgenstein's P hilosophical Investigations is dominated by an attack on a platonist or classical realist conception of rules and meaning. In this paper, I address the lack of clarity that still exists concerning the nature and strength of the arguments in those sections. I argue that W ittgenstein's attack is genuinely compelling if viewed as an intricate reductio ad absurdum argument that runs all the way through §§138–201. On my reading, the well‐known regress‐of‐interpretations argument is merely one stage in the overall reductio and is not sufficient on its own to generate the rule‐following paradox.