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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your point is that you're being unreasonable? We agree for once! — S
With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication. — quoted in the OP, unattributed
Why does the genesis of english seem this way to you? Most (all?) historical linguists would profoundly disagree (unless you're playing extremely fast and loose with 'invent', 'agree' etc.) Your account sounds a little bit like Rousseau's idea that the original humans must've been running around, on their own, until they got together and decided to have a society. — csalisbury
With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication — quoted in the OP, unattributed
It's trivially true that language originated in humans, but it was not "invented" as if there was some conscious effort at design involved. — Baden
according to the rules (conventional syntactical practices) — Janus
Right, especially when it was in lieu of answering a simple question. I was looking for an answer, not a deflection.You're the one with no idea what an emoticon indicates; — Janus
If you produce an argument that addresses any of what I have written, I'll consider responding, otherwise I will ignore you. MU. — Janus
For example, the so-called rules of grammar were operative long before anyone analyzed actual language usage and explicitly formulated them. — Janus
So if we didn't invent language--and specifically a language like English, then we didn't create it, we're not the originators of it. Who or what is? — Terrapin Station
Is this ontology thing even the right way to think about this, or is there a better way? Perhaps making it more about language or categories? Is this just what is called a language game, or is there something more substantial to it? — S
Language is not merely an individual habit, but a collectively evolved and utilized system. Of course there are patterns of usage, but without those there would be no language. Those patterns are equivalent to rules; they reflect the communally shared ways of doing things with language which have become established by convention. — Janus
These communally shared ways of doing things with language are effectively rules, whether or not they are explicitly recognized as such. The 'chess' example I gave, where someone could learn to play chess, that is to follow its rules, by imitation, without actually explicitly formulating those rules shows the same thing. Rules of etiquette are another example of rules that can be acquired just by imitation without needing any explication. — Janus
If you want to pedantically say these examples are not 'really' rules; what could that "really" mean, when what I have outlined is in accordance with common usage of the term 'rule'? — Janus
Rule-following, even when it is not made explicit, is ubiquitous in human communal life, and obviously necessary for that life, and that is really the point, whether this social phenomenon is called "rule-following" or not. Even animals do it. — Janus
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.