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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Formalism cannot adequately distinguish constitutive from regulative rules because rules must be understood based on contextual use

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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