Abstract

This essay presents a critical discussion on Brożek's article "Imagination and Rule Following". In the first part, it advances some concerns regarding the evidence which some Brożek's assertions are based on. In the second part, it identifies three senses in which inadvertently the expression 'normativity' is used in his work. On this basis, the main idea of the essay is that some Brożek's theses and, in particular, his central proposal about the existence of an unconscious, impoverished form of normativity and a conscious, full-blooded one are ambiguous because the sense in which he is using the expression is not clear.