w h o is t h e 'w e ' i n q u e s t i o n ? I f 'w e ' re fe rs t o a p a rtic u la r, in d e p e n d e n tly id e n tifia b le g r o u p , th e n th e c re d e n tia ls o f that group to fix w hat m ust be accepted can always be challenged.Any way of speci- fying a characteristic

a c c o u n t fo r its authority is liable to be problem atic. W e can alw ays ask, that is, w hy the particular feature specified is to be taken as ensuring the legitim acy of the group's im prim atur. Appeals to the shared insight or expertise of group m em bers, for exam ple, sim p ly raise th e q u e s tio n o f w h o

t o q u e s tio n . R u t n o th in g in this fa c t g iv e s th e s lig h te s t in d ic a tio n o f w h y s h a re d c o m m u n ity p ra c tic e s a n d s ta n d a rd s should have norm ative force. T h e appeal to the accepted practices of norm al m em - bers of our group looks like dogm atic self-insistence. D espairing, then, of the avail- a b le m e a n s fo r p ic k in g o u t a n e m p iric a l 'w e ' in a n a p p ro p ria te a n d re le v a n t fa s h io n , w e

w o u ld c o m p rise a challenge to our self-im age as w ell as to the self-assurance of our claim s and stan- d a rd s . If, in th e e n d , it re m a in s a n o p e n q u e s tio n w h e th e r o u r w a y s o f e v a lu a tin g our beliefs reflect m ere prejudices, then even those aspects of ourselves that w e see a s d is tin c tiv e ly

w o rld a n d w e h a v e b e e n a rtific ia lly a n d a s it w e re p re m a tu re ly s e p a ra te d . I t is as if the w orld had first to be stripped of the taint of m eaning before it could again be r e n d e r e d

e n v iro n m e n t fo r th e d w e llin g o f m o rta ls . W h a t, ask H e id e g g e r a n d W ittg e n s te in , m o tiv a te s th e p h ilo so p h ic a l p ic tu re th a t re n d e rs su c h prior alienation of us from

of w hat a rule dictates, because every interpre- tation hangs in the air and seem s itself subject to interpretation; there m ust (if a rule is genuinely to determ ineap a rtic u la r w ay o f g o in g o n ) b e a w ay o f u n d e rs ta n d in g the rule that isn o t a n in te rp re ta tio n

understanding to our com m on agreem ent in judgm ent (P I$ 2 4 2 ) . P in k a rd fin d s in th is a g r e e m e n t a k in d o f g r o u n d in g of o u r linguistic practices: "W e orient our par- tic u la r ju d g m e n ts

th is c o m m o n a lity , P in k a rd continues, "there is nothing else m ore norm atively fundamental."Thus, he has it: " T h e 'c o m m o n

o f life is n o rm a tiv e ly a u th o rita tiv e fo r u s although in a groundless fashion; w e cannot give any further norm ative account of th a t fo rm o f n o rm a tiv ea u th o rity ." '

d o u b ts (v .P Ip . 2 2 4 ) ; h o w e v e r, in th e s k e p tic 's e y e s , w e h a v e d e lib e ra te ly a v o id e d a p e rfe c tly le g iti- m ate effo rtt o question the credentials of our taken-for-granted w ays of proceeding. All w e have provided

o f life;w e h a v e g iv e n n o in d ic a tio n as t o w h y w e s h o u ld n o t b e c o n c e rn e d w ith w h e th e r th e re s u lta n t 'o rie n ta tio n ' is, o n a c c o u n t o f its 'p a ro c h ia lity ',

o f life ' p ro v id e s a m e re ly c o n v e n tio n a l o r fo r th a t m a tte r a m erely natural basis of our w ays of going on, neither of w hich can account for its p u ta tiv e n o rm a tiv e

o f life"(P Ip . 2 2 6 ) . T h is p r o n o u n c e m e n t d o e s n o t d ic ta te a c o m p la c e n t a c c e p ta n c e o f a c o n v e n tio n a l o r n a t- ural basis for our practices; rather, our hum an form s of lifecom prise our practices,