automatic expulsion or disqualification from the language game. — S

I mean a specific, concrete or practical, non-metaphorical consequence. The consequence is a specific punitive action taken by other persons.

I have no idea what "expulsion or disqualification from the language game" would even refer to.

For example, if a store has a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" rule, then breaking that rule will get you kicked out of the store.

I understand your argument as well as anyone who can understand an argument that doesn't make sense can. The rules you are talking about could very well not even be in existence yet, certainly, they are unknown to you when someone else is speaking, why would you promise you can articulate rules you don't even have access to? — Judaka

Funny. You say that I'm not making sense, then you talk of rules which could very well not exist, which is obviously not what I'm talking about at all. I'm only talking about rules that do exist. And rules that are merely unknown to me are merely rules that are unknown to me. Likewise with access. I reject the bad idealist logic which ties existence and knowledge together, and this is no place to regurgitate that bad logic.

I accept that I can't articulate a rule that I don't know. How could I? That's obvious. It's also not a problem. It would mean whatever it means in the language. Why wouldn't it?

As for the first quote I provided, it doesn't appear that you can actually refer to any kind of legitimate source for rules, it's just a free for all - how can you provide rules for English? Or my usage of words? You can speak for yourself and hypothetical people at BEST and I don't think you could even do that without a lot of effort, repeated tries and you'd probably need help from someone like me. — Judaka

That's either ludicrous, or, as I assessed, boils down to your trivial refusal to recognise whatever I refer you to as rules for English. And I'm almost certain that the issue is the latter. So, if it's the latter, then why should I waste my time doing that?

I do not wish to reignite the same argument that I gave up on again when I don't have a plan on how to handle it differently, see your position in a new light or indeed see you in a new light. I am just curious as to how it appears as though your positions have changed. Are you perhaps just making it up as you go? — Judaka

:roll:

I already have a theory, and an argument in support of it, and I'm looking to develop it and explore other angles.

But if you're just going to repeat the same problems from the other discussion instead of a more productive approach, then I would rather you did not respond at all.

So are we saying that "in order to get what one wants from others, one must do such and such"? — Terrapin Station

No, once again, you can't simplify it like that without misrepresenting it. I won't accept a rough simplification which could end up being weaker and more susceptible to any potential attack you might be considering. What's wrong with my wording?

I mean a specific, concrete or practical, non-metaphorical consequence. I have no idea what "expulsion or disqualification from the language game" would even refer to. — Terrapin Station

I mentioned miscommunication. You don't consider that impractical? When Frank says "dog", he means something completely different, which causes initial confusion, which is a problem, and which would need to be resolved in order for successful communication between Frank and the others to take place.

I'm trying to figure out just what we're claiming in terms of "medium-size dry goods"--that is in terms of what's literally going on, from a practical perspective, of people and things "doing things"--actions and events.

With rules, the consequence is a specific punitive action taken by other persons. I should also add with some consistency of punitive action, by various people, whenever that rule is broken by various others. It can be a range of possible punitive actions, but they'll be actions we can specify (for example, various possible sentences for breaking a law, with laws being one type of formalized rules . . . another example would be the range of fines, suspensions or outright expulsion of an athlete re a particular pro sports organization)

Funny. You say that I'm not making sense, then you talk of rules which could very well not exist, — S

Naturally, if the speaker can make a rule then he can make more rules (in the future).

You are now talking about English as if everyone has their own personal English which was not the case before, again, I can substantiate this if needed.

In this case, I actually agree that you don't need my argument, that was intended for the idea that there is one English.

Likewise with access. I reject the bad idealist logic which ties existence and knowledge together, and this is no place to regurgitate that bad logic. — S

What are you talking about? Mind-independent knowledge or "does a tree make a sound in a forest does anybody hear it?" type stuff? I don't think you ever understood what I was saying despite your enthusiasm to tell me I'm wrong because this has nothing to do with it. I don't know if I want to explain it again either.

I'm trying to figure out just what we're claiming in terms of "medium-size dry goods"--that is in terms of what's literally going on, from a practical perspective, of people and things "doing things"--actions and events. — Terrapin Station

Okay, then we'd need to break down what I was talking about, and try to account for each "thing" and their relations. That's my wording we'd have to do that with, not yours.

So, going back, we have rules, language, following or not following, a person, what he wants, and changing the language.

What next? You want to name or categorise each thing? Seems to me that there are abstractions, actions, a person, a desire, relations. Fundamental laws of logic and facts also seem necessary to make sense of the situation, as does science to some extent.

Is that any help?

With rules, the consequence is a specific punitive action taken by other persons. I should also add with some consistency of punitive action, by various people, whenever that rule is broken by various others. It can be a range of possible punitive actions, but they'll be actions we can specify (for example, various possible sentences for breaking a law, with laws being one type of formalized rules . . . another example would be the range of fines, suspensions or outright expulsion of an athlete re a particular pro sports organization) — Terrapin Station

This just seems like you're making up your own rules about rules. Rules about rules which have some truth to them, but which I don't agree with because they purposefully rule out the rules that I'm taking about if the rules that I'm talking about break your rules for rules.

Blimey, that was a bit of a mouthful. See what I mean when I said that rules are everywhere you look?

This just seems like you're making up your own rules about rules. Rules about rules which have some truth to them, but which I don't agree with because they purposefully rule out the rules that I'm taking about if the rules that I'm talking about break your rules for rules.

Blimey, that was a bit of a mouthful. See what I mean when I said that rules are everywhere you look? — S

Re the post above this, I need to take more time with it, so I'll answer it when I get back from the running around I need to do.

Re this one, I was just stressing that we must be using "rule" differently. No problem with that. I'm just pointing it out.

Naturally, if the speaker can make a rule then he can make more rules (in the future). — Judaka

Yes, and that's still irrelevant. I'm not talking about potential or future rules which do not presently exist. I never was.

You are now talking about English as if everyone has their own personal English which was not the case before, again, I can substantiate this if needed.

In this case, I actually agree that you don't need my argument, that was intended for the idea that there is one English. — Judaka

Isn't it funny that it's always my fault when someone misunderstands my argument? It's never theirs.

There is English, which is a public, shared language with established rules. Then there is our usage of that language, which it sometimes makes better sense to call a separate language of its own, based on English. If I use a well known English word, like "dog", and I create a new rule for it, then I've deviated from English in a subtle way. Subtle, that is, except when I use that word in my way (or by my language) amongst proper English speakers, and the incongruence becomes apparent.

This is not the first time that I've gone over this subtle difference, but I get it: it's all my fault, and you're entirely blameless. Right?

What are you talking about? Mind-independent knowledge or "does a tree make a sound in a forest does anybody hear it?" type stuff? I don't think you ever understood what I was saying despite your enthusiasm to tell me I'm wrong because this has nothing to do with it. I don't know if I want to explain it again either. — Judaka

If you're not hinting at idealist assumptions about the supposed connection between existence and knowledge, then you should stop bringing them up together in the same context when the existence part was completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about nonexistent rules! That's absurd. Then you followed that by talking about unknown rules. That seemed odd and unnecessary, and I was just trying to make some semblance of sense out of what you were doing, and why you were doing it.

If your point was just that I can't articulate a rule that I don't know, then sure, I've agreed, and I've pointed out the irrelevance. Your point about nonexistent rules was also irrelevant. Do you have a relevant point to make?

Okay, then we'd need to break down what I was talking about, and try to account for each "thing" and their relations. That's my wording we'd have to do that with, not yours.

So, going back, we have rules, language, following or not following, a person, what he wants, and changing the language.

What next? You want to name or categorise each thing? Seems to me that there are abstractions, actions, a person, a desire, relations. Fundamental laws of logic and facts also seem necessary to make sense of the situation, as does science to some extent. — S

Errands got postponed a bit, so I can answer this now.

What I want to stick with for a minute is meaning on your view (although I suppose that necessarily is about rules on your view, too, so we're kind of doing both). (Also, I'm avoiding that we use "meaning" differently.)

The issue at the moment (remember there are other questions I haven't gotten to yet about this) is how we get from a group of people specifying that x will be defined as y to that somehow "transcending" (or whatever we'd want to call it--I can't think of a better word at the moment) it simply being a contingent fact that those individuals define x as y, that they'll probably not agree to define x as z instead just because someone wants to, that they contingently may not understand someone who defines x as z, etc

On your view, if S defines x as z, and S is the only one, S is wrong about the definition/meaning of x, right?

So I want to figure out how that becomes the case. That we're not just reporting contingent facts about what some group of people are doing, but making true/false normative claims that are somehow independent of what the group of people who defined x as y happen to do.

One place that we're probably going to have a major bone of contention on this is that you believe that "there are abstractions," presumably in some sense where we're not simply talking about an individual thinking about something in a way that we call an abstraction. The latter is what I think. If you think that abstractions are something more than this, I'm going to be curious just what you think they are, just how they come to be and persist, etc..

When did I ever talk about existence or knowledge? You mean the existence of rules? If you were talking about English then I'd be correct but since you started talking about an individual's rules / unstated rules then I'm not sure, I have not personally ever articulated or understood my "rules" for language use. You called me an idealist on the basis that I didn't accept English had particular rules, a claim which for you substantiated the existence of objective meaning, you said you demonstrated a paradox merely by showing that we could communicate with each other. I can substantiate all claims I've made with quotes as necessary.

Your argument has completely changed, most of what I said was relevant only to English as a shared language.

As far as your own personal rules go, in so far as they are independently coherent, this is all interpretation. Meaning doesn't exist without interpretation, that's my position.

The meaning of your rules to plants, rocks and gas and whatever else is left without intelligent life - it's not even a question of whether it exists or not, the idea of meaning doesn't even exist anymore.

Objective meaning doesn't even make sense as a concept - it means what to whom? How does it mean something to nobody? You take a concept like meaning which is necessarily possessed by one and play with the notion of it existing independently and call those who disagree with you idealists. Absurd! You have never witnessed meaning held by no one in your life but you've taken your thought experiment too far and you've lost sight of what meaning actually is.

The issue at the moment (remember there are other questions I haven't gotten to yet about this) is how we get from a group of people specifying that x will be defined as y to that somehow "transcending" (or whatever we'd want to call it--I can't think of a better word at the moment) it simply being a contingent fact that those individuals define x as y, that they'll probably not agree to define x as z instead just because someone wants to, that they contingently may not understand someone who defines x as z, etc — Terrapin Station

That's just an explanation in terms of social relations. What about the language itself? What about what the words mean in the language, according to the established rules of the language?

I am drawing closer to thinking that monistic and reductionist explanations almost inevitably encounter problems. Are you not thinking to yourself something like, "I need to get rid of that terminology", or, "I need to make that all about something else, like people, thoughts, actions, etc."?

On your view, if S defines x as z, and S is the only one, S is wrong about the definition/meaning of x, right? — Terrapin Station

Wrong according to the established rules of the language, if the established rules of the language contradict or preclude what S is doing with his own rule.

So I want to figure out how that becomes the case. That we're not just reporting contingent facts about what some group of people are doing, but making true/false normative claims that are somehow independent of what the group of people who defined x as y happen to do. — Terrapin Station

We have to be careful that we're talking about the right sense of independence here. Rules don't establish themselves, after all. But once they're established, I simply ask: wherefore art thou, necessary dependency?

I go by the realist logic, which seems very reasonable to me, that if x means y, then x means y.

I don't go by any logic which I think Russell would call psychologism. That is, something like: x means y if x means y & if and only if x is understood by S & y is understood by S &...

One place that we're probably going to have a major bone of contention on this is that you believe that "there are abstractions," presumably in some sense where we're not simply talking about an individual thinking about something in a way that we call an abstraction. The latter is what I think. If you think that abstractions are something more than this, I'm going to be curious just what you think they are, just how they come to be and persist, etc.. — Terrapin Station

I'm curious too. And I'm not necessarily going to be able to answer your questions and solve the mystery.

But a mystery is better than a bad explanation, right?

That's just an explanation in terms of social relations. What about the language itself? What about what the words mean in the language, according to the established rules of the language? — S

So the point here is precisely this: you believe that what's going on is something other than those social relations. I want to get at just what is going on, just how things work aside from those social relations in your view.

(I don't personally think something else is going on. I'm definitely a reductionist, as long as we're including relations in our reductions. I don't buy that anything is more than the sum of its parts, as long as the parts include relations, too.)

Wrong according to the established rules of the language — S

Sure. So I want to get at how the established rules are the established rules where we're not just talking about social relations (in your terms--my analysis would have a lot to do with how individuals are thinking about things, too). How does that work?

We have to be careful that we're talking about the right sense of independence here. Rules don't establish themselves, after all. But once they're established, I simply ask: wherefore art thou, necessary dependency? — S

Right. So, the group of people define x as y, and then from that point on, x is y, whether anyone in the future thinks so or not, because . . . well, I haven't the faintest idea why that would be the case. So that's what I'm hoping we can dissect somehow. How does that act of christening ("x shall be defined as y") obtain a "life of its own" so to speak?

I also buy psychologism and I think that one of philosophy's biggest blunders has been its attempts to reject psychologism.

When did I ever talk about existence or knowledge? — Judaka

Do you have amnesia? I was referring to the following:

The rules you are talking about could very well not even be in existence yet, certainly, they are unknown to you when someone else is speaking, why would you promise you can articulate rules you don't even have access to? — Judaka

You mean the existence of rules? — Judaka

Yes, that's what we're talking about: rules. And you yourself brought up existence in relation to rules. You said that they could very well not be in existence, even though they can't, because I was only ever talking about existent rules, and it couldn't "very well" be the case that existent rules don't exist. But it probably wasn't a contradiction, just a fallacy of irrelevance, because you were talking about something else.

If you were talking about English then I'd be correct but since you started talking about an individual's rules / unstated rules then I'm not sure, I have never personally articulated or understood my "rules" for language use. You called me an idealist on the basis that I didn't accept English had rules, a claim which for you substantiated the existence of objective meaning, you said you demonstrated a paradox merely by showing that we could communicate with each other. I can substantiate all claims I've made with quotes as necessary. — Judaka

Look, I've said before that if you're just going to deny that what I'm calling rules of English are rules of English because your own semantics - your own rules! - don't allow that, then I don't find that very interesting. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it there if that's the case, which it seems to be.

I've given plenty examples of what I'm calling rules. You can call them whatever you want. I don't care.

Your argument has completely changed, most of what I said was relevant only to English as a shared language. — Judaka

No, it's your comprehension which I think has changed, not my argument. You pick up some parts, but not others; you misunderstand something, but then you adjust your understanding. I know it's a cliché, but it's not me, it's you.

Meaning doesn't exist without interpretation, that's my position. — Judaka

Good for you. Obviously I reject that position, and this is absolutely not the place to go over it again. Hence me ignoring the rest of your post which shamelessly attempts to do just that, in spite of my clearly stated wishes. The bad idealist logic belongs in the discussion I created to discuss bad idealist logic. Take it there, if you want. That discussion is still open.

Okay, it's very clear to me from your reply that we fundamentally disagree over multiple key issues. That is interesting. However, I think I need to think some more. But I'm still thinking that my current scepticism is better than adopting your position. It would be better if there's a better explanation than yours out there which I can adopt instead, but as things stand, it's scepticism for me.

I wonder if anyone here can help me out. And no, by that I don't mean a rejection of what I've been constructing to be replaced by something else entirely. Especially not idealism.

I don't even hold the position of speakers creating rules... I think that the whole thing is nonsense.

I entered this thread with the intention of sharing a perspective which I thought would improve your position, not argue further.

I only stayed in this thread because you continue with your dishonesty but you keep going and it's no longer worth the effort. The notion that you only assert rules exist for individuals is untenable with the assertion that by demonstrating I understand your words (through the rules of English) you've demonstrated objective meaning.

It is as expected, difficult to communicate with people who judge and condescend immediately.

I see. So not only do you still misunderstand my argument, you slander me as well. Bye-bye, then.

No, these are all just rules. There's a rule that this new variation is to be called an "apple", there's a rule that "apple" in this instance isn't to be taken literally. Show me something where I can't give you the rule. — S

What rules? Show us one of these rules.

All the rules which I know of are expressed with language, so it takes language to make a rule, as far as I understand "rule". If this is the case, then the existence of language cannot rely on rules, because language is required to make rules.

What rules? Show us one of these rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just did. It's there in what you quoted.

All the rules which I know of are expressed with language, so it takes language to make a rule, as far as I understand "rule". If this is the case, then the existence of language cannot rely on rules, because language is required to make rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Look at how you begin: the expression of a rule, you say? No way! It's expressed in... language?! Get outta town! I thought it was expressed in watermelon.

Yes, Metaphysician Undercover. A rule expressed in language is indeed a rule expressed in language.

Yes, Metaphysician Undercover. I believe you when you say that you don't know any better. This isn't much help to me, I'm afraid.

I just did. It's there in what you quoted. — S

Where's the rule? I don't get it. I don't see it.

A rule expressed in language is indeed a rule expressed in language. — S

Right, so I'll repeat the point. If rules only exist as expressed in language, then rules are created by language. Therefore language is prior to rules, as a cause of existence of rules, and rules are not required for language.

You are conflating rules with the expression of rules; that's where you are going astray in your thinking.

I'm not getting you. What's "a rule" other than the statement, do this under these circumstances, or do that under those circumstances? To understand what the words mean is one thing, but it's not the rule. The rule is the statement itself.

Rules need not be explicit. For example, the so-called rules of grammar were operative long before anyone analyzed actual language usage and explicitly formulated them. So a rule is certainly not merely the statement of it.

For example, the so-called rules of grammar were operative long before anyone analyzed actual language usage and explicitly formulated them. So a rule is certainly not merely the statement of it. — Janus

I don't believe this, I think you're fabricating again. How could there be a rule which was not formulated? There's no such thing as an unformulated rule, it couldn't exist as a rule if it wasn't formulated. What form would the rule have, if it were unformulated? It could have no form because that form would be a formulation of the rule. And if it didn't have any form, how could it exist? Saying that a rule exists before it is formulated is like saying that a thing exists before it exists. It's pure nonsense.

Rules of grammar are stated. If they're not stated, they do not exist as rules of grammar. You need to distinguish habits of language use from rules. Just because a person is in the habit of doing something in a particular way, (e.g. I am in the habit of calling this thing a "laptop"), this does not mean that the person is following a rule. Furthermore, people learn habits from each other, through observation and experience, without referring to rules. Rules are created to curb habits. So the habits exist before the rules relating to those habits, are produced. You ought not confuse these two, thinking that people acting in a similar habitual way, are following a rule.

Where's the rule? I don't get it. I don't see it. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's expressed in the quote. It's unreasonable for you to expect me to do anything else here. How can I show you without expressing it? You're basically asking me to express it without expressing it, which is obviously an unreasonable request.

If rules only exist as expressed in language, then rules are created by language. — Metaphysician Undercover

The antecedent in your conditional is false.

You are conflating rules with the expression of rules; that's where you are going astray in your thinking. — Janus

Spot on, as ever. :up:

Rules need not be explicit. For example, the so-called rules of grammar were operative long before anyone analyzed actual language usage and explicitly formulated them. So a rule is certainly not merely the statement of it. — Janus

I wouldn't understand how you're using the term "rule," in the vein of my comments above re how I use that term.

I agree that a rule isn't merely the statement of it (people need to apply meaning to the statement, for example), but I don't get what you'd be referring to re an inexplicit rule. What definition of "rule" would you be using?

It's expressed in the quote. It's unreasonable for you to expect me to do anything else here. How can I show you without expressing it? You're basically asking me to express it without expressing it, which is obviously an unreasonable request. — S

Right, that's my point. A rule can only exist as expressed by language. The rule requires language for it's existence, it is dependent on language. Therefore language is prior to rules, as required for the existence of rules, and it is impossible that language depends on rules.

The antecedent in your conditional is false. — S

If you think that it is false that a rule can only exist as expressed in language, then the onus is on your to give evidence of this. You said above, that this is an unreasonable request. It is not, an unreasonable request. You are claiming X is false, and the request is for evidence to back up your claim that X is false. If you cannot show me a rule which is not expressed in language, then it is your claim, that X is false, which is unreasonable.