K. Cahill, A. Pichler: Introduction to Wittgenstein 8th lecture 12.10.2020: Grammar; Rules; Rule-following [Some slides make re-use of slides by S. Säätelä] 1 AloisPichler Grammar 2 AloisPichler Übersichtliche Darstellung of / Focus on grammar and language rather than “phenomena” PI §90: We feel as if we had to see right into phenomena: our investigation, however, is directed not towards phenomena, but, as one might say, towards the 'possibilities' of phenomena. What that means is that we call to mind the kinds of statement that we make about phenomena. […] Our inquiry is therefore a grammatical one. PI §116: When philosophers use a word —"knowledge", "being", "object", "I", "proposition", "name" — and try to grasp the essence of the thing, one must always ask oneself: is the word ever actually used in this way in the language in which it is at home? — What we do is to bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use. PI §371: Essence is expressed in grammar. PI §373: Grammar tells us what kind of object anything is. (Theology as grammar.) PI §383: We do not analyse a phenomenon (for example, thinking) but a concept (for example, that of thinking), and hence the application of a word. 3 AloisPichler Rules Grammar has to do with rules 4 AloisPichler “What is a rule?” 5 AloisPichler What is a rule? ➢ … – asks the philosopher☺. Remember1, LW says: If you in philosophy have a question such as «What is …?», then … ➢ Language game method! ➢ Remember2: Introduction to the PI (§§1-88) under 7 headings ➢ Mistakes of the «Augustinian picture» ➢ Acting ➢ Language game ➢ There is no philosophical language game («einfach», «Bedeutung», «Satz» …) ➢ Form of life ➢ Family resemblances ➢ Übersichtliche Darstellung 6 AloisPichler «What is a rule?» Hence, in treating this question we should try to 1) avoid the mistakes of the «Augustinian picture» 2) keep in mind the importance of a focus on human acting 3) treat the question in terms of «language game» 4) avoid introducing language and concepts that transcend ordinary language 5) imagine the form(s) of life (the «phenomena») that belong with the notions of rule that we develop 6) be prepared that «rule» is a «family resemblance concept» 7) aspire at an übersichtliche Darstellung of the uses of the words «rule» and «rule following» (rather than of the «phenomena» of «rule» and «rule following») 7 AloisPichler There are very different kinds of rules! (“Do all rules have something characteristic in common which makes them rules?”) See, in addition to Wittgenstein, also F. Waismann: The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy (1965) and Logik, Sprache, Philosophie (1976). 8 AloisPichler Regularity? “Rules describe regularities.” ➢Also the movements of planets can be described as being regular – but do planets follow rules? 9 AloisPichler Regularity of human acting? “Rules describe regularities in human acting (acting!); rules of language, for example, describe regularities in words use.” • Sometimes we say that some particular phrase is not correct language (e.g., in Norwegian, “Ikke glem og lukke vinduet”). We say so not on the basis of regularities in linguistic practice (most Norwegians talk in this way!), but on the basis of norms of language. Those rules that we invoke in order to correct actual usage are normative, not descriptive. • Rules don’t need to agree with regularities existing in actual usage. I can introduce new rules precisely in order to change the actual usage, thus, in order to be normative. • Rules are not like factual statements about regularities: The latter can be true or false, while rules are normative and tell us whether human behavior is correct or incorrect. ➢ Thus, regularity cannot be the characteristic of rules? 10 AloisPichler Rules are normative: Used as justification? “A great many things in human life are normative; what makes rules special is that I can refer to them as justification for my acting, e.g. for saying ‘Hunden er snill’ rather than ‘Hundet er snill’ (grammatical rule).” ➢Also orders are used as justification! 11 AloisPichler Rules are normative: Like orders? “What makes rules specific, is that they are orders or function like orders.” ➢Orders have people who give the order – who are the “ordereres” of rules, their “rulers”? 12 AloisPichler Rules are normative: Like ideals? “What makes rules specific, is that they are ideals or function like ideals.” ➢ If someone makes an illegal move in Chess and I say to him: “Chess is played by such and such rules”, I do not mean: “OK, you play chess, but not how it ideally should be played”. – If I say to someone “Cod is cooked in such and such a way” I can mean “OK, you cook cod, but not how it ideally should be done”. (Constitutive vs. Regulative rules) 13 AloisPichler The cause for doing something? “What makes my behavior into following a rule, is that I am caused to act in this way by a rule.” ➢A rule is not a cause, but a reason for acting – intentionality is involved. 14 AloisPichler The reason for doing something? “What makes my behavior into following a rule, is that I do it for a particular reason.” ➢Most of rule-following is “blind”. 15 AloisPichler Rules are normative: Like conventions? “Rules are introduced by convention; they are conventional (“willkürlich”)? • The rules of everyday language are not generally arbitrary in the sense that they would result from explicit convention – rather, they are “überliefert”, passed on, part of a “tradition” (see Gadamer). Sure, some of the rules of grammar or games are open to being arbitrarily changed and can thus become the subject of convention! 16 AloisPichler Normative only? What should “normative” mean? “Rules in language tell us how words are to be used, they are normative.” • Some linguistic rules simply describe how words actually are used (“bruksmåtebeskrivende” vs. “regelgivende definisjoner”); they are descriptive. • Btw.: What does “are to be used” mean? There are many different uses of “ought” (“sollen”). – One ought to say “Thank you” when one receives a present. Is this a rule in language? Are we here still speaking about grammar? 17 AloisPichler Rule vs. Application? “Rules are what is fixed before the application (of the rule).” ➢ There is no sharp dividing line between what is fixed / defined / introduced / agreed upon before the application, and the actual application of the rule. – See for example the case of learning language, both first and second language: Where do you draw the dividing line between learning the rule and learning its application? – In cases of learning by doing we might say that we first learn the application, and only afterwards the rule. 18 AloisPichler Eternal fixation? “Rules are what is a sort of fixed once for all – while the application of the rule varies case for case.” ➢Rules are not fixed forever, but can be changed. 19 AloisPichler Learned explicitly? “Rules are an essential, explicit ingredient in learning a game.” • Often the rules of games are not explicitly learned, but read off from the actual game practice. • “Red and green exclude each other”, “The external world exists” are rules of (depth) grammar, but not learned explicitly. 20 AloisPichler Rules: «I’ll teach you differences» • “Constitutive” vs. “Regulative” rules • Instructions that together make up an exact and coherent calculus (expert system) vs. Rules in an open ended / vague / evolving / multiperspectival / sometimes even incoherent and inconsistent domain • «Knowing that»-rules, conscious, explicable and verbalizable by rule follower vs. «Knowing that»-rules, hidden, but explicable and verbalizable by expert vs. «Tacit» rules, «knowing how», maybe not verbalizable and with «imponderable evidence» • Descriptive rules vs. Normative rules and rules for ethical behaviour 21 AloisPichler Rules: «I’ll teach you differences» (cont.) • Rules that involve the living body (incl. emotion and expression) vs. Rules that involve language, logic and physics only • Rules that can / should be followed by humans only vs. Rules that can also be followed by machines • Rules that one can learn on one’s own (by observation …) vs. Rules that one can learn only through instruction by others • Rules that are learned in practice vs. Rules that are learned by explicit instruction • Rules inherited by tradition («Vorwissen») vs. Rules in a human life’s time or a short period only 22 AloisPichler “… sure, rules can be changed!” 23 AloisPichler How easy is it to change … • Basic laws in logic • Basic laws in mathematics • Laws of nature • Regularities in nature and anthropological constants (human biology, birth, death …) • Patterns and regularities in human behaviour (expression of sadness, joy …) • “Hinge” certainties • Depth grammar («I understand» is partly similar to «I can continue»; «I have pain» is dissimilar to «I have a car» …) • Mere conventions: traffic rules, orthography, contracts in politics and economy, games like chess, sign posts, work routines … • … 24 AloisPichler Reflection • Have we in this session throughout paid sufficient attention to our «seven guides» …? • Were we in this session focused on analysing the use of «rule» only, thus sticking to grammar – or were we also looking to the phenomena of rule and rule-following? – Cf. PI §383: We do not analyse a phenomenon (for example, thinking) but a concept (for example, that of thinking), and hence the application of a word. 25 AloisPichler Rule following 26 AloisPichler A rule stands there like a sign-post. —Does the sign-post leave no doubt about the way I have to go? … [W]here is it said which way I am to follow it … (PI §85) • A rule stands there like a sign-post. — Does the sign-post leave no doubt about the way I have to go? … [W]here is it said which way I am to follow it … (PI §85) • Reflection: “A rule stands there like a sign- post …”: What sort of rule are we talking about here? 28 AloisPichler How does the rule guide me? «How do we get from the rule to rule- following? How do I make the transition from the rule to its application? Which is the mediating step between the two? What is to count as following the rule correctly?» 29 AloisPichler Proposed answers ⚫ Determinism ⚫ Platonism ⚫ Interpretationalism ⚫ Decisionism ⚫ Skepticism See H.