A Philosophical Study of Rules
On rules as vibes, normativity, Wittgenstein and Kripke...
Meaning is normative. It’s kind of made up. Because realistically, where did the first meaning come from? Someone made it up. It became social etiquette. It evolved and developed, and thus the story keeps on going.
There is technically a correct use of words and an incorrect use. We judge how words are used based on this correctness. It’s as if the world is independent of this correctness. So if I were to say something like "dogs are pigeons," you would look at me like I’m crazy because the standard definition of a dog is something that usually goes woof and can be cute and fluffy. But what if I believe dogs can fly? There is a correctness to words and their meaning. Objects figure in our understanding in a non-determinative way.
To mean something is to manifest understanding and to use a word correctly. Or to correctly follow a rule.
We navigate the world through rules—both spoken and unspoken. From the way we order coffee to the way we address authority figures, we absorb norms without necessarily being taught explicit rules. But how do we know the right way to behave in a new setting? What makes something the 'correct' way to act or speak? The answer, as Ludwig Wittgenstein suggested, lies in the way meaning itself is tied to normativity. In other words, meaning isn’t an inherent truth—it’s a set of shared social practices that we collectively agree upon.
Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations challenges the idea that meaning comes from individual interpretation. Instead, he argues that meaning arises from the ways rules are applied in practice. Words only make sense within the context of their use, embedded in shared social activities. “For a large class of cases of the employment of the word 'meaning'—though not for all—this word can be explained in this way: the meaning of a word is its use in the language,” he writes. Meaning, then, is not a private matter but something that exists in the public domain. The same applies to social norms: they aren’t written in stone, but they become real through shared use and reinforcement.
Take language itself. There is technically a correct use of words and an incorrect use. We judge whether words are used properly based on these pre-established norms. If someone were to say, “Dogs are pigeons,” you would likely assume they were joking, being metaphorical, or just mistaken. The standard definition of a dog involves certain characteristics—barking, four legs, companionship—that have been collectively agreed upon. But what if someone insisted that dogs could fly? It would defy common understanding because meaning is not arbitrary; it is anchored in communal agreement.
Wittgenstein’s insights apply beyond language. Think about etiquette. We follow unspoken customs—shaking hands in introductions, saying 'please' and 'thank you,' or dressing appropriately for different occasions. If someone walks into a formal dinner in pyjamas, they violate an expectation that isn’t necessarily written down but is widely understood. Similarly, in the digital age, certain aesthetics dictate how we communicate online. People get annoyed when someone doesn’t use capital letters or omits punctuation for stylistic reasons. A poem with no rhyme scheme might feel jarring because it challenges traditional expectations. These rules, like language, are not inherent truths but socially constructed norms.
One of Wittgenstein’s most famous arguments is that rules cannot be followed privately. Meaning is anchored in social practice, not individual understanding. If I were the only person in the world and I invented a private language, how would I verify that I was using words correctly? There would be no external standard, no way to confirm consistency over time. This is why language, etiquette, and social norms must be shared and reinforced by a community.
Consider the way trends emerge. At first, a handful of people begin using a new slang word, wearing a particular style, or following a certain practice. Over time, as more people adopt it, the trend solidifies into a norm. But it’s not codified anywhere—no one officially declares the shift. Instead, it becomes correct simply because enough people recognise and participate in it. Social media accelerates this process, making norms even more fluid and dynamic. One week, a phrase like “slay” is used primarily in queer subcultures; the next, it's mainstream. But the meaning is always contingent on its use within the community.
Wittgenstein’s ideas also apply to expertise and gatekeeping. If you’ve never played chess, you can’t sit down and understand the game immediately. You have to learn the rules first. The same goes for language and meaning. You can't walk into a chemistry class and fully grasp what’s being discussed without learning the foundational principles. This means that meaning—and by extension, knowledge—is not equally accessible to everyone. There’s an element of elitism: if you haven’t been taught the 'rules' of a field, you are excluded from participating. This is evident in academic jargon, corporate lingo, or even niche online communities where understanding the in-group’s language is necessary to fully engage.
Of course, not everyone agrees with Wittgenstein’s view. Saul Kripke, one of his critics, raised a skeptical challenge: how do we know that we are following the same rule as someone else? If two people use a word, what guarantees that they are applying the same meaning? But, as Wittgenstein might respond, this is largely irrelevant in day-to-day life. The fact that communication works, that we can successfully interact and understand each other, shows that these shared norms function well enough. As long as meaning is useful within our collective practices, we don’t need absolute certainty about whether we are following rules in the exact same way.
In the end, our reality is constructed through norms that feel natural but are, at their core, just agreed-upon vibes. We conform to these rules not because they are universal truths, but because they allow us to communicate, participate in society, and maintain order. Whether it’s language, etiquette, or fashion, meaning is always evolving through social reinforcement. And in that sense, what we take to be 'natural' is just the latest version of collectively agreed-upon rules. We live in a world where rules are just vibes, but those vibes shape everything we do.
My newsletters are all free to read (I gave up making them paid because I want everyone to read everything!) But please considering supporting a struggling 9-5 girl with just one iced latte!