Basic Normativity of Concepts. A Re-reading of Kripke’s Sceptical Argument

In what follows I will defend a basic sense of normativity for concepts. My first step will be to show that Kripke’s two claims should not be assumed or refuted en bloc. I will call Kripke’s first claim ‘Basic Normativity Requirement’, and the further negative thesis ‘Thick Normativity Thesis’. I will argue that the Basic Normativity Requirement is all what follows from Kripke’s dialectic. On the contrary, Kripke’s arguments for the Thick Normativity Thesis are not equally compelling  there is no apriori argument for the claim that no natural fact can constitute a standard of correctness for word or concept-applications.