ELEPHANT TO RICK
Thanks for the serious attempt to grapple with what I was saying, and maybe
we'll here a bit more about this plug/socket think we've got going. Well,
later. I tried length. Now (comparative) brevity.
RICK WROTE:
> I have been taught that to label a rule as "self- contradictory" where the
> only thing that violates a rule is its own expression is to commit the
> logical/rhetorical fallacy of "self-inclusion"--- the inclusion of the hidden
> premise that "logic demands rules always include themselves".
ELEPHANT:
I still think you are confused.
A rule can have *exceptions*, but being an *exception* to a rule is not like
being not *included* in the scope of the rule. This is shown by the fact
that you can define your rule's scope so as to have no exceptions
whatsoever, while excluding most of the world from the scope. I lay it down
as a rule that my pseudonym is 'elephant'. No exceptions: this rule is true
of everything it includes. Horse being Horse isn't an exception to this
rule, because Horse ain't even included: he's not me.
But suppose the rule wasn't just including elephant. Suppose the rule
wasn't just "elephant is called 'elephant'" but "all named individuals are
named 'elephant'". Well in that case the scope of the rule is all named
individuals, and Horse is included, and thus Horse is an exception - in fact
he's a counter-example.
Now think about "all rules have exceptions". Is this rule included in
itself? Well yes, because the scope of this rule is not "elephant's rules"
or "other rules" but "all rules", and this rule is a rule, self-evidently.
So there's no denying that as a rule it *includes* itself. The only
question now is whether it is an *exception* to itself. It is, I think.
Indeed, the argument I have offered shows that it is a counter-example to
itself.
Once more unto the breach... and stop it up with BLOOD:
In order for the claim "all rules have exceptions" to be self-consistent,
there would, logically, have to be an exception to the rule "all rules have
exceptions". And in order for there to be an exception to the rule "all
rules have exceptions", there would have to exist exactly what the claim
"all rules have exceptions" denies the existence of, viz, some (unspecified)
rule to which there are no exceptions. QED.
I think I will now leave it at that. I recommend you not post a reply to
this 'over-hasty'. I always thought the Ents where the real heroes of The
Lord of the Rings.
Oh entwives where are you now?
Tending your gardens in the land of Shadow
Elephant
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:05 BST