To me rule-following is a very “homespun” way to explain logic, math, and language. Meaning the social-communicative aspect of “rule-following” provides an explanation for informal and formal language and action. Formal use is defining things in a such a way every single human will know how to follow as step by step rules.
If this is later Wittgenstein, is this “rule-following” explanation of everything supposed to be be a competing ontology to naturalism and theology?
If so, how? Naturalism can say through scientific reduction we can make progress by continually reducing the complexity of problems. And theology that we may become closer to God or something. These are means of “progressing” toward a complete state of knowledge or being.
But how does rule-following assure adherents it isn’t just stuck spinning its wheels, not making progress toward some ultimate explanation? Like instead of inspecting some video display for how it works, the rule-follower spends their time endlessly cataloging what colors came out. Compared to the naturalist actually finding the display mechanism being done. These other ontologies have plausible “terminations”. If rule following is supposed to compete with them, how does it have its own sense of ultimate understanding/progress?
If rule-following means that we can’t understand anything beyond following rules, why bother with anything?