He was a complete fuck-up. — god must be atheist
Not so. He was an officer on the front lines, decorated several times. — jgill
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"
Not so. He was an officer on the front lines, decorated several times. — jgill
Thanks. I did not know that. — god must be atheist
...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”.
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
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
Yep.You can't follow a rule unless you understand it; — god must be atheist
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. — Banno
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
wheelchair bound — god must be atheist
↪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 is an instruction, — god must be atheist
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
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
and understanding the rule requires the interpretation of the rule.
— god must be atheist
Nuh. — Banno
If you understand the rule, you can do additions — god must be atheist
Which of the two is true? — god must be atheist
I rest my case. — 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. — Banno
One could understand a rule without ever implementing it. — Janus
That's a stupid question, Isaac. It's obvious — Janus
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? — Isaac
I experience a state of comprehension. — Janus
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
If I did implement them or describe them to your satisfaction; how would I know that you were a competent judge — 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.