Paradox of Rules

from University of Tokyo 1S Law and Society

Paradox of Rules According to Ludwig Wittgenstein, rules cannot determine the way of action because any action can be made to match a rule. This means that rules can be manipulated and interpreted in different ways. (blu3mo)

For example, even if you observe addition being performed multiple times, you cannot be certain that the rule for x + y is the same as your understanding of addition because it could be a form of Quasialgebraic calculation. (blu3mo)

In this sense, if rules are only tested within a limited range, it is impossible to have certainty in understanding the law. This is what is referred to as the Uncertainty of Derivation. (blu3mo)

It’s like having only the program file without knowing the specifications of the compiler, so you don’t know how it will work. This is the most understandable analogy for me. (blu3mo)

The following are my notes when I probably misunderstood the point:

I thought you could just look at the rules. (blu3mo)

• Counterargument:
• Even if you look at the law, you can’t understand its meaning without deriving it in specific situations.
• Quasialgebraic calculation is simple, so we can think, “What if we try deriving it with numbers greater than 57?”
• It’s not guaranteed that the same thing can be done with more complex rules.
• You can’t know what a rule allows or doesn’t allow just by looking at the rules, so you have to assume the Uncertainty of Derivation.
• However, couldn’t we test all the cases and perform tests based on the different cases in the rules? (blu3mo)
• In practice, program testing is done in that way.
• Well, but does this assume that the specifications of the programming language are shared?

When faced with this situation, the question arises: what does it mean to follow the rules? And how can we restore the validity of the rules? This is the field of Philosophy of Law. (blu3mo)

It’s very mathematical/logical, isn’t it? (blu3mo)

• It feels like a science subject right now.

The solution to the paradox of rules is the concept of Practical Space. According to this idea, in the practical space, we unfold various practices based on rules, ignoring logical possibilities from the beginning. What I want to say is probably something like this. (blu3mo)

• Indeed, from the rules themselves, we cannot know “what is allowed and what is not allowed.”
• There are infinite logical possibilities.
• However, in any case (in the Practical Space), there is a context that is agreed upon, and by using it, we can understand what the rules allow and do not allow.
• This agreed-upon context is called Common Knowledge.
• This is how humans live, ignoring countless logical possibilities.
• This seems to be the general idea of Law.
• It suddenly shifted from a theoretical discussion to a practical discussion. (blu3mo)
• Well, it’s natural because the main argument is about shifting to practicality.
• But somehow, I feel like I was told, “Such discussions are irrelevant in practice” when I was talking about theory.

The commitment to choose one possibility and exclude others has significance. This leads to thinking about “what to follow” and how to restore the validity of rules under the paradox. This is also the idea of Aspect Theory, which distinguishes between “seeing as” and “being seen.” (blu3mo)

• Aspect Grasp: The appearance that only those who have learned the application of a concept (Technical Knowledge) can stand up.
• For example, when you see a hidden picture of a rabbit, only those who have acquired the concept of a rabbit can grasp the aspect. (blu3mo)

Why does this way of thinking become the solution to the paradox? The uncertainty of derivation is saying that the meaning as a source of application (logical meaning) cannot be uniquely narrowed down.- However, from the perspective of aspect theory, rules can be seen as just one step away from logical meaning and closer to practical meaning.

• Practical meaning refers to the logical possibility of meanings selected in practical space.
• If we consider that the source of application is practical meaning, we can find the legitimacy of law without uncertainty and contradiction in derivation.
  • In legal studies, we want to study that practical meaning.
• To give an example using programming (blu3mo):
  • Processing is not uniquely determined by the source code itself, but by the combination of the source code and the compiler’s specifications (aspect theory).
  • So, it is true that processing is not uniquely determined by the source code alone (uncertainty of derivation), but in practice, we can consider processing based on the specifications of the compiler we are currently using, so there is no problem.
• 
  • As shown in the lower part of this diagram, “practice,” “practical knowledge,” and “rules” influence and loop each other.
    • Rules influence practice (i.e. our actions), which in turn influences practical knowledge (i.e. implicit understanding), which then influences rules (i.e. interpreted law, practical meaning of law).
      • That’s right (blu3mo).
  • Also, there is a worldview that separates practical space and legal space.
    • It’s interesting to consider “rules (conventions/customs/traditions)” and “legal propositions” in people’s consciousness separately (blu3mo).
      • I used to equate them (blu3mo).
    • Practical knowledge is like the compiler, legal propositions are like the source code, and “rules (conventions/customs/traditions)” are like the binary, I guess.
• Impression:
  • The content is certainly difficult, but I feel like they are explaining it with an emphasis on clarity.
  • It feels like they are explaining quite obvious things with difficult words, but I think they are concepts and vocabulary that will become the foundation for future discussions.