Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Formalism cannot adequately distinguish constitutive from... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Formalism cannot adequately distinguish constitutive from regulative rules because rules must be understood based on contextual use

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Searle's original constitutive/regulative distinction presupposes that rule-following is embedded in background practices that cannot be fully articulated propositionally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Formalism treats rules as self-interpreting propositional objects, ignoring Wittgenstein's point that rule-following requires shared forms of life to determine application.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When participants treat the same written rule as constitutive in one sport and regulative in another, the rule's text alone underdetermines its classification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.H.L.A. Hart's distinction between primary and secondary rules demonstrates that the legal force of any rule depends on a 'rule of recognition' grounded in social practice, not formal inscription.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If even legal formalism requires a practice-dependent rule of recognition to classify rules, then sporting formalism faces an identical regress that only contextual use can resolve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rules must be understood based on how participants use them in specific contexts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Formalism does not provide the resources to make these contextual discriminations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without contextual discrimination, formalism cannot reliably classify rules as constitutive or regulative
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Formalism does not provide the resources to make these contextual discrimination...Formalism treats rules as self-interpreting propositional objects, ignoring Witt...H.L.A. Hart's distinction between primary and secondary rules demonstrates that ...If even legal formalism requires a practice-dependent rule of recognition to cla...
    +4 moreShow less
    Rules must be understood based on how participants use them in specific contextsSearle's original constitutive/regulative distinction presupposes that rule-foll...When participants treat the same written rule as constitutive in one sport and r...Without contextual discrimination, formalism cannot reliably classify rules as c...

    Similar

    Whether a rule is constitutive or regulative depends on how participan...90%It remains unclear when a rule is constitutive or regulative90%The constitutive rule/regulative rule distinction does not adequately ...88%Without contextual discrimination, formalism cannot reliably classify ...87%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: sport
    View source passageHide passage
    Another criticism that has been levelled against formalism is the apparently implausible implication of the logical incompatibility thesis that any game in which a rule is broken ends at the point at which the rule-breaking occurs. If rule-breaking is incompatible with gameplaying then any foul or accidental transgression of the rules would cause the game to end. For instance, a 100m sprint would cease when a runner makes a false start. A basketball game would terminate when a player commits a s
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit