automatic expulsion or disqualification from the language game. — S
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
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
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
So are we saying that "in order to get what one wants from others, one must do such and such"? — Terrapin Station
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
Funny. You say that I'm not making sense, then you talk of rules which could very well not exist, — S
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
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
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? — S
Naturally, if the speaker can make a rule then he can make more rules (in the future). — Judaka
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wrong according to the established rules of the language — S
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
When did I ever talk about existence or knowledge? — Judaka
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
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
Your argument has completely changed, most of what I said was relevant only to English as a shared language. — Judaka
Meaning doesn't exist without interpretation, that's my position. — Judaka
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
I just did. It's there in what you quoted. — S
A rule expressed in language is indeed a rule expressed in language. — S
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
Where's the rule? I don't get it. I don't see it. — Metaphysician Undercover
If rules only exist as expressed in language, then rules are created by language. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
The antecedent in your conditional is false. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.