How would rules conjure a concept? It's probably that both rules and concepts are elements of post hoc analysis of language. — frank

The difference between prescriptive rules (how one ought to behave), and descriptive rules (post hoc inductive statements about behaviour) is very important. I understand a dictionary definition as principally a post hoc inductive statement. However, in educational institutions we are taught to use certain words according to strict rules of application, like my example of "triangle". In this case the rules are prescriptive, and this is what I've argued is constitutive of "concepts".

Both use in practice and formulation of a rule are aspects of concepts. — Ludwig V

I agree that both are aspects of concepts, but I also argue that what you call use of words in practice extends far beyond the use concepts. So "use in practice" is a very large category, and the majority of it does not involve concepts. And, I argue that this is a very important point to understand if we want a proper representation of "use in practice". If we assume that all "use in practice" involves concepts, then we'll end up saying that all communication, even that done by other animals involves concepts. Therefore I think we need some rules as to what exactly "a concept" is, and we need to adhere to those rules in discussions like this.

You could say that there are two different, but related, concepts here, or you could say that there are sufficient similarities between the two to justify calling them one. — Ludwig V

The point is that you cannot call two distinct sets of rules for using a specific word "one concept", without allowing for the possibility of contradiction inhering within that concept. So in your example of distinct uses of "game", things which one person would qualify as "a game" would be disallowed by the other, so you'd end up having contradictory uses of "game" being allowed for by "the same concept". This means that your proposition for "concept" allows for a violation of the law of noncontradiction.

Again, there are several varieties of football - different concepts of it if you like, since there are formal books of rules. It isn't a usually a problem. I don't see the point of arguing about it. — Ludwig V

It is a problem for anyone who claims that the different varieties are "the same game", though having different sets of rules. if two different teams want to play the same game, "football" and they each have different sets of rules, that's a very real problem. They have to hammer out their differences and decide on one game to play. They can't each be playing a different game, and insist that it is the same because they both have the same name. Likewise with concepts, if we want to have a logical discussion, we can't each be proceeding with different rules of usage for the same word, and insist that it is the same concept. That's a fallacy known as equivocation.

So, in my view, the use of the word in practice is more important that whether an explicitly formulated rule is being followed. — Ludwig V

For logical procedures following explicitly formulated rules is of primary importance. I agree that use of the word in practice may sometimes serve as a guideline for creation of those rules, especially if common practice already follows from a field of discipline (rule guided). But in many cases, the principle of "use of the word in practice", just serves to deliver equivocation, therefore it must be curbed for philosophy and logical procedures.

I agree that we have the concept of “freedom” and there are rules as to how the word “freedom” is correctly used in language (rules as to what the concept does).

But there are no rules as to why we have the concept “freedom” in the first place (rules as to what the concept is) — RussellA

I don't agree with any of this. I don't believe we have a concept of "freedom". It's just a word that's used commonly, and in a vast variety of different ways, without any real restrictions on usage. One could not locate, or isolate a commonly accepted "concept of freedom".

How could you use the word “freedom” in a sentence if you did not know what freedom meant, did not know the concept of freedom. — RussellA

That's simple, you just follow the examples set by others. It's a form of copying, mimicking. This provides one with the basis for acceptable usage without learning any concepts.

I don't agree with any of this. I don't believe we have a concept of "freedom". It's just a word that's used commonly, and in a vast variety of different ways, without any real restrictions on usage. One could not locate, or isolate a commonly accepted "concept of freedom".....................you just follow the examples set by others. It's a form of copying, mimicking. This provides one with the basis for acceptable usage without learning any concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover

In language there is the word “freedom”, and although it is commonly used, I agree that it has no publicly accepted meaning, concept or definition.

As regards copying, person A sees person B say “freedom” and be given a sailing boat. Person A wants a sailing boat and therefore also says “freedom” on the expectation that they are given a sailing boat.

Person A copies person B’s behaviour saying “freedom” because they have the prior concept of wanting a sailing boat. Person A would remain motionless if they had no prior concept of wanting a sailing boat. Person A only speaks because they have a prior concept.

Person A may want the sailing boat in order to sail across the Atlantic, and person B may want the sailing boat in order to sail at the weekends. It could be that every member of the linguistic community has a different meaning or concept of “freedom”.

I agree that “freedom” is a word commonly used in a vast variety of different ways.

The expression “freedom” has a meaning in language because it is associated with observable, empirical behaviour, even if everyone’s meaning or concept of “freedom” is different.

The problem with using your own private language is that there wouldn't be a way to confirm rules. That same issue shows up if you ask yourself what rules you've been following up till now. There's no fact of the matter. — frank

Can you not make up your own rules for own private language, confirm and agree with the other member who uses the private language too?

Yes, it is a point to mull over as you indicated. Will get back for further thoughts on the point, if crops up.

The rule of random determination? Can't randomness be considered as a rule? — Corvus


Not as a rule. — RussellA

There seem many things operating under the rule of random selection or random events. Consider the lottery jackpot numbers drawn from 50 numbers plus 12 lucky star numbers. The winning jackpot numbers consists of 5 numbers and 2 lucky star numbers randomly chosen. No one can predict or say why those numbers came out. But they do.

Another example, consider your own birth. Was there a rule for you having been born as yourself?
Can you explain why you were born as RussellA? Nope. I guess not. It was a pure random event. But there you are.

Many things happen and exist without explanation why. That is the truth of reality. Is it not?

There seem many things operating under the rule of random selection or random events. — Corvus

Chess has rules and society has laws that are consciously made by humans

They say that we are living in a rule-governed universe that operates according to the laws of nature, meaning that there are rules and laws operating independently of humans.

Because humans are a part of the Universe, and our concepts are part of us, it may well be that our concepts are rule-governed operating according to the laws of nature. I don’t know.

Because humans are a part of the Universe, and our concepts are part of us, it may well be that our concepts are rule-governed operating according to the laws of nature. I don’t know. — RussellA

Chess has rules and society has laws that are consciously made by humans — RussellA

Not sure about the universe - how large it is and how it began. One thing seems to be clear is that concepts are made by man. Western chess has its rules, but the Chinese chess has it own rules, and Japanese chess called "Go" has its own rules too, which are all different and specific on how they work.

On the concept of freedom, you could write a dissertation on its origin of the word, analysis of the meaning and uses of the concept, if needed.

We can make up any rules on anything, and as long as we agree to follow, that would be the rule. And in some cases, there is no rule for something such as random events and operations, and that is a rule too.

We can make up any rules on anything, and as long as we agree to follow, that would be the rule. — Corvus

Suppose we make any rule, which we agree to follow. But we need another rule that we agree to follow the rules. But we need another rule that we agree to follow the rule that we agree to follow the rules.

Ultimately, rules are no more than social agreements.

We can make up any rules on anything, and as long as we agree to follow, that would be the rule.
— Corvus

Suppose we make any rule, which we agree to follow. But we need another rule that we agree to follow the rules. But we need another rule that we agree to follow the rule that we agree to follow the rules.

Ultimately, rules are no more than social agreements. — RussellA

I don’t think that’s right, and the regress you set up is a good way to see why.

If rules were “nothing but social agreements,” then you really would need an extra rule that says “now follow the rules,” and then another, and so on. But in real life we don’t add an continuous stack of meta-rules. We get trained into a practice where “following the rule” is already part of the technique, shown in what counts as going on correctly, what's a correction, what's a mistake. It's not a separate agreement; it’s built into what we do.

Also, agreement isn’t enough. A group can agree on a rule and still misunderstand it, misapply it, or disagree in cases about what counts as following it. That’s why rule following isn’t just a vote, it’s a practice with standards that show themselves in use, training, and correction.

I’d say it like this, rules aren’t private rails, but they also aren’t social contracts. They’re norms embodied in shared practices, and that’s why the regress stops in “this is how we go on,” not in a further agreement to agree.