But seriously, csalisbury has a point. Why build a philosophical theory of language without consulting history to see whether there is evidence humans actually acquired language that way? — Marchesk

Well, it seems pretty obvious. As Baden noted, "It's trivially true that language originated in humans."

According to normal usage conventionally established patterns of behavior are rules. Think of the road rule: drive on the left hand side of the road (in Australia). If one consistently drives on the left hand side of the road merely on account of following what everyone else does; that is following a rule. Standing in queues is another example. — Janus

I'm not saying you can't use "rule" however you want to use it, but I can't recall anyone using it simply for conventions. Everyone I've encountered uses "rule" with a stronger connotation than that. Driving on a particular side of the road is indeed a rule, because it's a law, and if you break it, you'll be ticketed, etc. If simply being a convention is enough to be a rule, then it's a "rule" that during slow songs at a concert, you engage and hold high your lighter (or now your phone). I just never knew anyone who would call that a rule.

I do not think that what you have said actually is in accordance with common usage of "rule". A rule is a principle, so to learn a rule is to learn a principle. When one person imitates another, that person is copying. To copy another is not to learn the rule, we learn this in grade school. That's why copying is not allowed. We must each learn the rules, the principles involved in what we are being taught, and copying from another does not qualify as learning the rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a good point in that there's a lot of conventional behavior that people do not condone. For example, it's a convention to acquire alcohol and drink in excess at parties organized by high schoolers. Is that thus a rule? It has to be if being conventional is sufficient to be a rule.

It's conventional if a girl gets pregnant in high school to have an abortion. Is it a rule, then, that if you get pregnant in high school that you're to have an abortion?

A rule can only exist as expressed by language. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is what you have a burden to demonstrate without begging the question (as you are wont to do).

I have some questions for you. What do you think an abstraction is? And do you think that an abstraction is composed of language?

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider that claim retracted, at least temporarily. :roll:

Now, the burden is on you, and only you. And arguments from ignorance don't count. You can't argue that it's not true because I haven't shown that it's false. That would be an invalid argument.

According to normal usage conventionally established patterns of behavior are rules. — Janus

That's not true. There are many conventionally established patterns of behaviour which are not rules. Are you familiar with "customs", and "mores"? "Rules" can be used to refer to some patterns of behaviour, but not all, depending on whether or not we have apprehended a principle which the behaviour conforms to.

Think of the road rule: drive on the left hand side of the road (in Australia). If one consistently drives on the left hand side of the road merely on account of following what everyone else does; that is following a rule. — Janus

That's a stated rule though.

Standing in queues is another example. — Janus

in some cases standing in the queue is a rule, in other cases it is not, and people just do it as their pattern of behaviour.

I have shown that rules are prior to, are not dependent on, and also underpin language. The point of your claim that an unformulated rule is not a rule is apparently to support a further claim that "rules are created by language". This is nonsense, since rules are created by people not by language, and even animals have rules and hierarchies that determine customary behaviors. — Janus

I never said anything yet about how a rule is "created". I said that language is necessary for the existence of a rule, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about rules existing prior to language. You clearly have a completely different idea of what a rule is than I do, and I think that your idea is counterproductive to understanding the reality of rules.

Language itself is a customary behavior. Whether you call these pre-linguistic customary behaviors "rules" or not doesn't change the fact that they exist and determine linguistic, as well as moral, behavior. — Janus

This is exactly why your notion of "rule" is counterproductive. When you characterize these customary behaviours as instances of obeying rules, instead of as instances of habitual behaviour, you produce an inaccurate description. Under your description you have "the fact that they [the rules] exist". because you assume as a fact, that these rules exist. Therefore, to understand these customary behaviours you will proceed to seek those rules. Under my description there are no such rules, and customary behaviours are habits of free willing human beings. Therefore to understand these customary behaviours I will seek to understand the habits of free willing human beings. From my perspective, your approach could be nothing more than a waste of time and resources, seeking non-existent rules.

That's a good point in that there's a lot of conventional behavior that people do not condone. For example, it's a convention to acquire alcohol and drink in excess at parties organized by high schoolers. Is that thus a rule? It has to be if being conventional is sufficient to be a rule. — Terrapin Station

One reason why I think it is a very good idea to distinguish habits from rules is to see that each of these two actually have a very different nature. The nature of a habit is that it arises from the choices of a freely choosing being. The nature of a rule is that it is designed to curb those choices, those habits which have been determined as bad. Consider that a lot of what the freely choosing being learns, is learnt through trial and error. By the time that the freely choosing being learns that a particular type of choice is an error, that choosing pattern may already be habitual. Then rules are needed to restrict that choosing pattern.

This is what you have a burden to demonstrate without begging the question, as you are want to do. — S

I can give you countless examples of rules which exist in the form of language, and could not exist without language to express them. In order to disprove my inductive conclusion, that rules require language to express them, you need to present some rules which do not require language to express them, or demonstrate how the rules which we express in language could exist without language. Otherwise you might reject my inductive conclusion, but your rejection is rather meaningless. And, an inductive conclusion is based in observation and reason, it is not a matter of "begging the question" as you are wont to say.

I have some questions for you. What do think an abstraction is? And do you think that an abstraction is composed of language? — S

An abstraction requires language, because a symbol is required to represent the thing abstracted. Otherwise the thing abstracted has no presence, and there is no such thing as the abstraction. You are using "abstraction" as a noun, not a verb.

One reason why I think it is a very good idea to distinguish habits from rules is to see that each of these two actually have a very different nature. The nature of a habit is that it arises from the choices of a freely choosing being. The nature of a rule is that it is designed to curb those choices, those habits which have been determined as bad. Consider that a lot of what the freely choosing being learns, is learnt through trial and error. By the time that the freely choosing being learns that a particular type of choice is an error, that choosing pattern may already be habitual. Then rules are needed to restrict that choosing pattern. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you'd agree that being a convention isn't sufficient to be a rule?

The same way apes invented humans, agreed on their traits, and then started being them?


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.

It seems counterproductive to try to come up with an ontology of meaning beginning with a speculative reconstruction that is disconnected from- and seemingly unconcerned with - research on what actually happened. — csalisbury

Alright, enlighten me then, smarty-pants. Gimmie the lowdown.

Oops, fixed that, attributed now. It's from the OP and seems to be laid out there as a kind of foundation for the rest of the discussion.

Edit: Oh, tho I guess the OP itself quoted it, unattributed. So maybe I've incorrectly attributed it. — csalisbury

:grin:

Whoops. It's all me. I'm quoting myself, unattributed. I just liked the formatting. I thought it looked neater like that. Clearer.

So you'd agree that being a convention isn't sufficient to be a rule? — Terrapin Station

Right, "convention" is a rather broad term. In one sense "convention" may refer to a rule, but in another sense it might refer to a custom which is not a rule. So not every convention qualifies to be a rule.

It's trivially true that language originated in humans, but it was not "invented" as if there was some conscious effort at design involved. Language develops organically. The world's most recently developed language, Nicaraguan Sign Language, is a case in point. The route from creole to full language occurred through the children of parents who used the creole and added grammatical complexity spontaneously.

So the process there is something like rudimentary tools of communication being automatically transformed into a language, which allows for more advanced communication and from which rules are retroactively inferred and codification occurs. The communication comes first then becomes more complex. And only at that point can you start to talk about a set of rules which defines how the language functions.

So, the quote

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

is senseless from a linguistic point of view (and really from any point of view to the extent it implies people invented and debated rules with each other before using language as a tool for communication).

It's true we don't know for sure how quickly or gradually language developed (there are competing theories), but there does seem to be an in-built capacity that kicks in with children to the extent that they can unconsciously create complex linguistic form. It's important though to stress the lack of purposeful design / agreement. — Baden

Fine, whatever. I was just trying to set the scene. You seem to be taking it a bit too literally. Maybe it's not perfect. So language evolved or magically sprang out of nowhere...

We don't really need a full blown lecture on the origins and development of language for the purpose of this discussion, do we?

However it got here, there are rules. Rules like what the word "dog" means. That's my take on the basics of how language works. Take it from there if need be.

I think I will agree with most of this.

If I were to add anything, I might say a rule presupposes a principle, whereas a habit presupposes an interest.

Another way to look at it is, a rule is reducible to a principle from which a corresponding behavior is obliged to follow, but a habit is not reducible to any principle, which permits habit to be merely a matter of convenience with arbitrary benefit.

In short, a law derived from a principle gives sanctity, or power, to a rule, but experience alone is the ground of habit.

Also, a rule presupposes a language for its expression. That which the rule expresses by means of language must already be given before the rule or the language, otherwise the expression has no content, therefore cannot stand as a rule.

Is your argument in the OP that ontology is confused because we need to be looking at language games instead to see what is going on when we categorize things? — Marchesk

That was a question, not an argument. I wanted to explore that avenue of thought.

If so, my response would that ontology remains relevant because there's lots of evidence in favor of reductive explanations and related patterns among various phenomenon. And that's why physics theorizes that four forces are all that's required for everything in the universe, and that ordinary matter is made up of particles that form atoms and molecules.

So there's good reason to think there is a basic stuff the universe consists of. Maybe it's fields, maybe it's particles and spacetime, maybes it's superstrings. Or maybe it's something we can only approximate. If you go back far enough, everything in the universe was part of tiny volume of space that inflated. It's not like rocks, stars and animals eternally populated the cosmos.

Is physics itself a language game? There is certainly agreed upon jargon. But the experiments themselves aren't linguistic. And those have forced scientists to revise their jargon and even replace it over time.

Atoms weren't a thing and then they were, and then they were composed of subatomic particles and light had particle properties, and all the odd QM and GR results. Also that it's heavily mathematical.

Is math a language game? — Marchesk

I don't doubt much of what you say there. Like I said in my other discussion, I don't doubt the science or the maths. But I do doubt what some philosophy-types draw from all of this.

My concern is over how much or to what extent our disagreement in this area - this area of ontological categories, and perhaps other areas or even generally - is genuine or merely semantic. Are we really disagreeing as much as we think we are, or is it more of an illusion: a bewitchment of language? How much of it, under proper analysis, amounts to game playing? Different games? Different rules? Perhaps the same game, but people play it differently or go by their own rules?

If I were to add anything, I might say a rule presupposes a principle, whereas a habit presupposes an interest.

Another way to look at it is, a rule is reducible to a principle from which a corresponding behavior is obliged to follow, but a habit is not reducible to any principle, which permits habit to be merely a matter of convenience with arbitrary benefit. — Mww

I like this. I think that a principle is something particular, we might say that it's an object, but an interest is more general, directing one's attention in a more general way rather than in a specific or definite way like a rule.

Also, a rule presupposes a language for its expression. That which the rule expresses by means of language must already be given before the rule or the language, otherwise the expression has no content, therefore cannot stand as a rule. — Mww

Right, I think this is the important point here. And to relate this to what I say above, it is this expression in language which gives the principle, or rule its particularity and this is its existence as a thing. That's what I told S, in the question about abstraction. An abstraction only exists as a thing, if there is a symbol. The symbol is what allows the abstraction to have actual existence as a thing. One might try to separate the principle or rule, from the language which expresses it, like one might try to separate the abstraction from the symbol which represents it, but there is no sense to this unless we allow that the symbol is prior to the principle represented, and then what is the symbol at that time before it represents something? It can't be said to be a symbol.

So this is a dilemma which leaves us with no choice but to say that the rule or principle cannot exist independently of the symbol which is said to represent it. Then the rule cannot exist independently of its symbolization. But this allows that language might exist prior to principles or rules, but this language would have to consist of something other than symbols, the words could not be called symbols. That is because it would not be proper to say that the language symbolizes, or represents anything, because if it did it would be rules or principles, being symbolized or represented, and we've already denied that possibility.

Also, a pattern is not equivalent to a rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

Janus is right. Behavioural patterns can be evidence of rule following. His examples are plausible and make sense. The explanation works.

All good.

As to having no choice, it is a matter of preventing endless regression, that we have to make an assumption somewhere along the line of methodological reduction. The principle is assumed, e.g., our perceptions, of themselves, don’t lie, etc., and the system to which the principle is applied is examined by means of it. We continue along with the examination until met with contradiction, in which case the principle is discarded and we start over, or until we are met with conformity to observation, in which case the principle holds. In between those two extremes reside laws, rules and habits. And language.

If simply being a convention is enough to be a rule, then it's a "rule" that during slow songs at a concert, you engage and hold high your lighter (or now your phone). I just never knew anyone who would call that a rule. — Terrapin Station

It's like an unwritten rule. You hold your lighter up during slow songs at a concert. You either play along or you don't. You don't have to play chess.

In what sense are their rules of chess, though, if there's no penalty (as I described before) for not following the rules?

The penalties that matter are disqualification from a tournament, etc.

You don't have to play Chess. — S

But in order to play Chess, you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, you're playing a different game.

In what sense are there rules of chess, though, if there's no penalty (as I described before) for not following the rules? — Terrapin Station

Wait, you don't seriously deny that there are rules of chess, do you? If the analogy is apt, then there are rules.

The penalties that matter are disqualification from a tournament, etc. — Terrapin Station

There are consequences for not following the rules, whether we're talking about chess or language games. If the consequences in the latter case don't fit your personal criteria for counting, then so be it. Besides, I mentioned disqualification earlier, and you dismissed it, yet now you're using it in your own explanation regarding chess.

But in order to play Chess, you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, you're playing a different game. — Marchesk

Yes. And? You weren't meaning to disagree with me there, were you?

I mentioned disqualification earlier, and you dismissed it, — S

I asked you to explain what it would amount to and you didn't answer.

It would amount to acting in disconformity, and it would likely result in miscommunication, and it would have the kind of consequences which you inevitably get when there's a miscommunication, or when you speak in a funny way.

Your response is trivial, because it amounts to: "well, by my rules, that still doesn't count, so it's not a rule". It would be more efficient for you to just copy and paste that each time.

It would amount to acting in disconformity, and it would likely result in miscommunication, — S

I don't understand how that would amount to a disqualification. Re rules, I explained earlier that I take them to be things for which there is I mean a specific, concrete or practical, non-metaphorical consequence. The consequence is a specific punitive action taken by other persons.

Re a chess disqualification, I'm not just talking about something like "I'm not going to play with you (any more)." I mean a formal organizational decision that someone is taken out of the running to win some tournament, say.

I never said anything yet about how a rule is "created". I said that language is necessary for the existence of a rule, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about rules existing prior to language. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was referring to this:

so it takes language to make a rule, as far as I understand "rule". — Metaphysician Undercover

There are two disagreements about rules I have with you. One is your assertion that rules are created in being formulated, and since it takes language to formulate a rule, then it follows that rules are created by means of language.

The other disagreement I have with both you and @Terrapin Station, is that the way I am using 'rule' does not conform with common usage, and the pedantic and overly strict way you are both using the term does.

Two common kinds of expressions refute that: "As a rule he has eggs for breakfast" and "It is an unwritten rule that people should respect others and wait their turn". You see the latter operating without the need for any explicit expression of it, for example, where two lanes merge, and most people give way to every second car.

Even animals do it; social predator species commonly have unwritten (obviously!) and unspoken (presumably!) rules about who gets to feast on the carcass first.

Again, I wouldn't say that you can't use "rule" to simply refer to conventions, but that's just not the way I use the term. There's nothing wrong with people using a term in different ways. We simply make explicit the different ways we're using the term so that we can understand each other.

I don't understand how that would amount to a disqualification. — Terrapin Station

If you begin a game of proper chess and you start moving the pieces in whichever ways you like, then you'll be disqualified. You aren't playing the game properly.

If you begin a game of proper English and you start using the words in whichever ways you like, then you'll be disqualified. You aren't playing the language game properly.

Re rules, I explained earlier that I take them to be things for which there is I mean a specific, concrete or practical, non-metaphorical consequence. The consequence is a specific punitive action taken by other persons.

Re a chess disqualification, I'm not just talking about something like "I'm not going to play with you (any more)." I mean a formal organizational decision that someone is taken out of the running to win some tournament, say. — Terrapin Station

Remember, you can just say: "well, by my rules, that still doesn't count, so it's not a rule". You're like me, aren't you? As in, generally, if you can say it in less words, do so?

There are two disagreements about rules I have with you. One is your assertion that rules are created in being formulated, and since it takes language to formulate a rule, then it follows that rules are created by means of language.

The other disagreement I have with both you and Terrapin Station, is that the way I am using 'rule' does not conform with common usage, and the pedantic and overly strict way you are both using the term does.

Two common kinds of expressions refute that: "As a rule he has eggs for breakfast" and "It is an unwritten rule that people should respect others and wait their turn". You see the latter operating without the need for any explicit expression of it, for example, where two lanes merge, and most people give way to every second car.

Even animals do it; social predator species commonly have unwritten (obviously!) and unspoken (presumably!) rules about who gets to feast on the carcass first. — Janus

Makes sense to me. Why don't they just go with what makes sense and resolve the problem? I think I'm noticing a general link between problems and overly strict adherence to rules at the expense of resolving the problems linked to them. Some people basically create their own problems and refuse to resolve them.

:up: Indeed, and it makes me wonder about just why people create unnecessary problems and refuse to let go of them. :confused:

Behavioural patterns can be evidence of rule following. — S

Sure, I agreed with Janus on this point. But not all cases of behavioural patterns are cases of rule following. So the premise "if there is behavioural patterns, there is rule following" is not a true premise.

There are two disagreements about rules I have with you. One is your assertion that rules are created in being formulated, and since it takes language to formulate a rule, then it follows that rules are created by means of language.

The other disagreement I have with both you and Terrapin Station, is that the way I am using 'rule' does not conform with common usage, and the pedantic and overly strict way you are both using the term does. — Janus

Yes, we disagree on what "rule" means.

Two common kinds of expressions refute that: "As a rule he has eggs for breakfast" and "It is an unwritten rule that people should respect others and wait their turn". You see the latter operating without the need for any explicit expression of it, for example, where two lanes merge, and most people give way to every second car. — Janus

I don't see your argument here. Both, "he has eggs for breakfast", and, "people should respect others and wait their turns", are written in words. The fact that you say "it is an unwritten rule" does not negate the fact that it is actually written in words.

Try this. Take away the words "he has eggs for breakfast", Now, the person gets up every morning and has eggs for breakfast, nice pattern. How does this pattern become a rule, unless it is stated as such? Or do you think the person gets up and thinks there is a rule that I must have eggs every morning for breakfast therefore I must have eggs, and so decides to have eggs? And try the other, so-called unwritten rule, "people should respect others and wait there turn". Take away those words, and what are you left with? It's certainly not "a rule".

You see the latter operating without the need for any explicit expression of it, for example, where two lanes merge, and most people give way to every second car. — Janus

If it is true, that when people are merging in their cars, they are following the rule "people should respect others and wait their turn", then they must be following that rule, as it is written, meaning that they have been exposed to that expressed rule, and are obeying it. Otherwise they might be following some other rule, or more likely, doing it for some other reason, and you are simply making the false statement that they are following that specific rule when they really are not..

Even animals do it; social predator species commonly have unwritten (obviously!) and unspoken (presumably!) rules about who gets to feast on the carcass first. — Janus

See, this is the problem with your perspective, which I've already explained to you. You assume that there are rules here, where there are none. Then, instead of looking for the real reason why these animals behave in the way that they do, you'll be totally distracted by the false premise that they are following rules, and maybe even go off on some wild goose chase, looking for some rules which don't even exist.

I think I'm noticing a general link between problems and overly strict adherence to rules at the expense of resolving the problems linked to them. — S

This is a problem isn't it? To follow a rule means strict adherence. You argue that using language is a matter of following rules, but now you complain that we cannot resolve these problems because people are too busy following rules. See the hypocrisy? Problem solving requires that we ditch the rules, and be innovative. That's what language is really all about.

Has an adequate methodology been elaborated and put to use here?

I mean, I haven't read the thread, but the OP asks about the origens of linguistic meaning. By my lights, that would require a very particular method of exploration.

What is each and every example of linguistic meaning existentially dependent upon?

That seems a relevant question.

What does each and every example of linguistic meaning consist in/of?

Do these questions share the same answers?

That seems to me to be a good place to start.