I argue the following two points. (i) The sceptical solution of the sceptical paradox or the solution of Kripke’s Wittgenstein is not successful. (ii) McDowell’s quietism should be grounded on the transcendental perspective. Kripke insists that the normativity of meaning is justified by the assertibility condition. But if we accept kripke’s claim, we need not admit there is no meaning fact. In Kripke’s justification, the communal rules are regard as the sufficient condition. But the communal rules or the normativity must be the necessary condition in order to justify the particular linguistic moves. The normativity of meaning and rule cannot be justified by the regularity and agreement. The justification by regularity and agreement commits a kind of the naturalistic fallacy. Rather the normativity of meaning is given to us. Though McDowell admits this point, he still insists the quietism. Because the dissolution of the philosophical problems must be dependent upon the constitutive conditions of the meaning, quietism should be grounded on the transcendental perspective.