The question of what it is to follow a rule, much debated in the current literature on Wittgenstein, is more complicated than most of its discussants seem to have realized. In general, their writings exhibit a tendency to overlook or blur important distinctions, lapses that make it difficult or even impossible to determine exactly what is at issue. Baker and Hacker are certainly right when they say that unless it is understood what rules are "confusions about rules ramify into muddles about following rules".¹