'For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage player, or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves than they can combine existence with non-existence'.

- Benedict de Spinoza. Political Treatise. 1677.




Monday, December 08, 2014

Philosophical Grammar 73


73. Isn’t it on the strength of a particular property, the property of being a rule, that we speak of the rules of the game. – We use the word “rule” in contrast to “word” “projection”, and some other words.



‘Isn’t it on the strength of the property of being a rule that we speak of the rules of the game’?

this is just to say – that a rule is a rule –

this – ‘the property of being a rule’ – is irrelevant rhetoric

the point being – ‘rule’ – is not elucidated or advanced in any way by saying it is a rule –

‘the property of being a rule’ – is a sham explanation of ‘rule’ –

and further I think it is an attempt to give ‘rule’ –  a foundation – beyond question

yes – we may use the word ‘rule’ – instead of  other terms – if we believe ‘rule’ is more useful than other terms



© greg t. charlton. 2014.