There are many interpretations of Kripke’s paradox. Some suggest that there is no paradox. Instead, Kripke simply misinterpreted the paradox. Still others suggest that Kripke was mistaken and that there is no paradox.
Essentially, Kripke’s paradox involves private language and rules. He suggests that even though there are rules to govern the use of a specific rule or specific word in language, the individual cannot rely on these rules. The rules cannot be changed but there is no absolute guarantee that the next time the rule or word is used, it will be used in accordance with the rules.
In a sense, this paradox or notion is an attack on the concept of realism. Here, realism is dealing with the context of the current state of the situation rather than issues and concepts outside of the immediate reality.
Given the concept of dogmatism, there might be some resolution to this paradox of Kripke’s. In dogmatism, there is little acceptance of doubt as being a valid construct of thinking. In other words, certain reliable and valid information can be obtained. Thus, the concept that knowledge is relative is not legitimate within this framework of philosophical thought.
In essence, rules do not change in the dogmatic world. Additionally, simply because rules change does not mean that the changing of the rules impact knowledge in anyway. All knowledge is concrete and in the present, so to speak.
Thus, in Kripke’s paradox, he suggests that because of the unreliability of the rules, language and the formation of any concepts is impossible. Without rules, all language and concepts are unintelligible.