He was a complete fuck-up. — god must be atheist

Not so. He was an officer on the front lines, decorated several times.

(But I kind of agree regarding his wondrous rule-following paradox.)

his wondrous rule-following paradox — jgill

That was more Kripke.

Not so. He was an officer on the front lines, decorated several times. — jgill

Thanks. I did not know that.

That was more Kripke — Banno

In Philosophical Investigations §201a Wittgenstein explicitly states the rule-following paradox: "This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule"

Yes, the bizarre addition example.

Not so. He was an officer on the front lines, decorated several times. — jgill

Thanks. I did not know that. — god must be atheist

I knew Lester Germer slightly, as a famous physicist (wave/particle duality) but more as a fellow rock climber. My impression of him grew considerably when I found he had been a fighter pilot in WWI. A multi-dimensional person.

Yep. Then according to the orthodox view, immediately resolves the paradox:

...there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which, from case to case of application, is exhibited in what we call “following the rule” and “going against it”.

Following a rule is not interpreting a rule; it is, rather, an act. Hence the "meaning" of the rule is found in the use to which it is put.

[thread successfully re-colonised by plain language theorist]

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule

If this were true, truly true, then the entire criminal justice system could be dismantled. Which it is not.

Wittgenstein fail. Again.

Following a rule is not interpreting a rule; it is, rather, an act. Hence the "meaning" of the rule is found in the use to which it is put. — Banno

You can't follow a rule unless you understand it; and understanding the rule requires the interpretation of the rule.

Since most rules have wording that forces a universal interpretation, at least the good rules, therefore the the paradox is demystified.

You can't follow a rule unless you understand it; — god must be atheist

Yep.

and understanding the rule requires the interpretation of the rule. — god must be atheist

Nuh. Understanding a rule requires that you are able to implement it. A child demonstrates that they understand "2+2 = 4" not by interpreting it as "Two plus two equals four" but by moving blocks around, colouring in squares, and arguing over shared cakes.

Nuh. Understanding a rule requires that you are able to implement it. — Banno

False. An adult can easily and obviously understand "You must walk up the stairs to the entrance" but he can't implement the rule if he is wheelchair bound.

Nuh. Understanding a rule requires that you are able to implement it. A child demonstrates that they understand "2+2 = 4" not by interpreting it as "Two plus two equals four" but by moving blocks around, colouring in squares, and arguing over shared cakes. — Banno

This is contentious. Maybe the child does NOT understand the rule but he can implement it. For instance, the rule here is not that 2 and 2 are four, but that the + sign means the two quantities are combined on the other side of the = sign. This is my interpretation. I can therefore say with certainty that 23523+4930 = 28453, but the child you mentioned does NOT interpret the rule, so he can't follow the rule.

2+2=4 is a special case, which helps demonstrate that a completely different rule is followed from how you and I interpret + and =. The child does not interpret these; he does not understand the meaning of them; therefore he can't do 393848+5958= sum. Implementation won't help him.

wheelchair bound — god must be atheist

Ableist pejorative aside, that's a poor example. "You must walk up the stairs to the entrance" is not a rule. But if one understands "You must walk up the stairs to the entrance", then they understand that they must walk up the stairs to the entrance, whether they can or cannot - they understand the actions required, which is something beyond the mere interpretation of the instruction.

Seems that on your logic, because there are additions which you have not interpreted, you do not understand addition.

it is an instruction, which is the rule how to get to the entrance. Some rules are specific and some rules are symbolic. "You must find the centre of the maze by tracing a path with a pencil" is a symbolic rule. How do you make a fully cognescent adult follow this rule if he has no arms or any way to hold and direct the travel of a pencil?"

Or if you don't like the instruction, then try this:

"You can get to the entrance by walking up the ramp, or else by walking up the stairs. The rule in this game is that you must walk up the stairs, not on the ramp." This is easy enough to understand by a person, even one in a wheelchair, who can't implement it.

If you have a special rule to define what you understand as a rule, please tell me. Like I said, good rules are interpreted by all the same way. If you and I interpret rules differently, please give me your definition. I'll abide by it and show you the same self-contradiction in the claim.

↪god must be atheist Seems that on your logic, because there are additions which you have not interpreted, you do not understand addition. — Banno

It may seem to you that way, but it is not like that. Addition is a rule; the understanding of a rule is to combine the additives into a sum. That is the RULE. Specific implementations depend on understanding this rule. Not having performed a particular addition, is not an indication that you don't understand the rule. If you understand the rule, you can do additions, and not having performed them does not deny your ability and potential to properly perform them.

it is an instruction, — god must be atheist

Sure, it is an instruction.

But if one understands "You must walk up the stairs to the entrance", then they understand that they must walk up the stairs to the entrance, whether they can or cannot - they understand the actions required, which is something beyond the mere interpretation of the instruction. — Banno

Sure, interpretation is part of understanding a rule. Wittgenstein's point is that interpretation is insufficient.

Following a rule is not interpreting a rule; it is, rather, an act. Hence the "meaning" of the rule is found in the use to which it is put. — Banno

Sure, interpretation is part of understanding a rule. Wittgenstein's point is that interpretation is insufficient. — Banno

These two are by you. Which of the two is true? Both can't be at the same time and in the same respect.

and understanding the rule requires the interpretation of the rule.
— god must be atheist

Nuh. — Banno

Here you clearly deny that interpretation is required.

I rest my case. You can continue if you like, but I have made my point, and any more text by me will be superfluous and redundant.

If you understand the rule, you can do additions — god must be atheist

But if you can't do addition, you do not understand the rule. The doing is central.

Which of the two is true? — god must be atheist

Both. What I am denying is that the whole of understanding a rule lies in interpreting it. One shows that one understands the rule by implementing it. Implementation is more then interpretation.

I rest my case. — god must be atheist

Cool.

Both. What I am denying is that the whole of understanding a rule lies in interpreting it. One shows that one understands the rule by implementing it. Implementation is more then interpretation. — Banno

It seems you are conflating understanding a rule with showing that you understand a rule. One could understand a rule without ever implementing it. If this were not so, for example any spectator of a sport they never played would be unable to understand its rules; which is obviously an absurd conclusion.

Whatever. It's a simple point: the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

It's a simple point: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. — Banno

I think that's a different point, but yeah, whatever...

One could understand a rule without ever implementing it. — Janus

Could one? What would 'understanding' the rule consist in?

Having a belief about what ought (or can) be done next? That would just be to have an opinion about the rule, nor to understand it.

Knowing what ought (or can) be done next? What would distinguish 'knowing' from merely 'having a view on'?

@Banno's point about the proof of the pudding is not merely about the difference between knowing and proving, it's about the fact that a rule is necessarily public and so a merely private understanding of it remains a mere opinion until demonstrated.

Incorrect; you would first have to understand a rule in order to be able to demonstrate that understanding. You are committing the same conflation as Banno; that between understanding and demonstrating understanding..

you would first have to understand a rule — Janus

So what does 'understanding' a rule consist in?

That's a stupid question, Isaac. It's obvious, for example think about tennis. The rules of tennis are perfectly comprehensible to me, and yet I haven't played the game. I know I understand the rules of tennis, and that understanding does not require that I demonstrate it to anyone.

That's a stupid question, Isaac. It's obvious — Janus

If it's obvious, then it shouldn't be too hard to write it down. Humour me. What is the obvious state that 'understanding' a rule consists in?

The rules of tennis are perfectly comprehensible to me, and yet I haven't played the game. I know I understand the rules of tennis — Janus

How do you know you understand the rules of tennis?

How do you know you understand the rules of tennis? — Isaac

The same way I know I understand anything; I experience a state of comprehension. Perhaps nothing I say could convince you about that; but that's fine, because your conviction that I understand is not necessary to my understanding. Think about it; if I didn't understand the rules of tennis, I would not be able to demonstrate them, by either implementing them or describing them. If I did implement them or describe them to your satisfaction; how would I know that you were a competent judge (which would require that you understood the rules of tennis)?

I experience a state of comprehension. — Janus

What? Have you never experienced a state of comprehension but later found you were mistaken? In what way is your personal conviction that you understand the rules of tennis a measure that you do, in fact, understand the rules of tennis?

if I didn't understand the rules of tennis, I would not be able to demonstrate them, by either implementing them or describing them. — Janus

Of course you would. I could well demonstrate following the rules of rugby despite not understanding the rules of rugby. An entire game might go by without my breaking a rule I didn't even know existed.

If I did implement them or describe them to your satisfaction; how would I know that you were a competent judge — Janus

All the while no-one disagrees. Rules are a public affair. We can't all be wrong about them - otherwise there'd have to be some 'truth-bearer' of rules outside of human culture.

It's said that the great Isaac Newton, after having worked on the problem of celestial motion, demonstrated i.e. proved that the orbits of heavenly bodies had to be elliptical. In other words, the mathematical relationship between relevant parameters implied/necessitated the oval shape of their orbits. Isn't this a case of causal necessity? Put simply, the math caused the orbits to take a certain shape, in this case an ellipse. Doing this for all cause-effect is going to be harder, but Newton did manage to get the ball rolling, oui?